Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel

waytoomuchcoffee writes "The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'. There is already a system in place to draft health care personnel, and this system would be expanded in order to 'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists."

1,212 comments

  1. Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Type 1 diabetes was never this handy! They don't want me anywhere near the military.

    1. Re:Booyah! by saden1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you've ever accepted financial aid you are on the hook. Besides, computer specialists don't exactly involve having to do real combat. I imagine you'll be operating things from proxy. It would be like playing video games except you might be coordinating real Tanks and Apaches.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    2. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't you need to be physically able to serve on the front lines (not that you would), if needed? This is why deaf people aren't allowed in the military side (non-civilian) of the service.

    3. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Type 1 diabetes is a particular problem for the military, because if for some reason you're unable to get insulin within ~24 hour period, you're screwed.

    4. Re:Booyah! by nellahcir · · Score: 0, Troll

      i would rather join the military any day than have diabetes!

      --
      - hcir
    5. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is ever a need for a draft again, the US is probably attacking a world power. And world powers tend to have things like cruise missiles that attack intelligence and control centers. You don't have to be holding a gun to be killed in a war.

    6. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It would be a mistake to assume you have skills that will keep you off a battlefield. That is why medical problems will can keep somebody completely out of the military.

    7. Re:Booyah! by Phillup · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was in the Air Force for eight years.

      I remember one of my supervisors telling this little story... he volunteered for the Air Force because he didn't want to get drafted by the Army and sent to some hill in Vietnam with a gun.

      So... he became a "communications specialist"... and was put on a hill in Vietnam... without a gun.

      ;-)

      Nothing like not having to do "real" combat...

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    8. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      hmm-- I think I'd have to agree with that. My dad was career Army, and most of my friends had dads that were career military, and mostly what we learned from that was don't join the military.

      But-- diabetes causes you to get sores on your feet that take a long time to heal (if they do)-- and they get progressively worse.

      My limited hospital experience saw people who would come in for wound care, then come in for toe amputation, then more toes, then half the foot, then BKA (below the knee amputation), then AKA, then they wouldn't come back anymore...

      Don't get diabetes. Lose weight-- it's supposed to help.

    9. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... also if you were diagnosed with Attention Deficit and have had to take Ritalin or other medications you should be exempt also... psychiatric conditions prevent you from signing up to the reserves.

      so... Horray for ADD...

    10. Re:Booyah! by deathazre · · Score: 1

      I'm in school too, but I also have to take certain medication. They wouldn't touch me if I was trying.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    11. Re:Booyah! by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In WW2 the average life of a machine gunner once deployed was something like 18 hours.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    12. Re:Booyah! by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Informative

      don't exactly involve having to do real combat. I imagine you'll be operating things from proxy.

      Yeah, that's what they told Shoshana Johnson, who thought all she would do was cook in the mess hall.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    13. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can relate to that as i was a comms speacialist in the air force... I got flown into northern iraq by the army to serve/fight on the ground with the green berets...!

    14. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's your point?

      If you're in the military, you always risk ending up as a target for hostile action. You've better make sure that you at least try to prepare yourself for it.

      If I were drafted (or did enlist) and given a job in which I were simply supposed to sit in front of a row of monitors in an underground bunker drinking coffee and eating donuts, I'd still make it damn sure to take time to ensure that I could put up a fight if necessary.

      I'd do PT, practise shooting and, if at all possible, try to hang around and make friends with with the real soldiers.

    15. Re:Booyah! by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I was a comm geek. Didn't stop me from spending time in the hospital recuperating from a firefight. Trust me, it doesn't matter what level of geek you are -- you'll still learn to run-n-staff for every one combat arms soldier. You think that the Army will let you sit on your ass in an air-conditioned bunker because you know how gun just like the rest of the grunts, and you'll still be put in that situation, regardless of your MOS? Why? Because there are 11 support to bust out mad C++? Think again. Jessica Lynch was a supply clerk, after all...

      --
      blog |
    16. Re:Booyah! by paganizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not necessarily true.

      If you'll take a look at fine sites like this one, this one or possibly this one, you will see that there is little doubt that should Bush get re-elected, we will have, at least, a limited draft instated by early 2005. If you don't follow the other links, I suggest this one. especially if you have a 17-18 year old son OR daughter.

      As to the obvious reason that this is going to happen, well you might start looking here; even though the military is basically not letting ANYONE out these days, time up or not, they aren't in my opinion going to be able to meet the numbers due to missed targets.

      My word of advice (and I volunteered, was in Gulf War lite, so screw anyone who says I'm not a patriot) is that if you have a boy or girl who are in high school, and they do NOT fully support the policies of the current administration, have them drop out if Bush gets reelected; the current system doesn't take people without high school diplomas, and it'll take them awhile to change the rules.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    17. Re:Booyah! by Maserati · · Score: 1

      That's seriously messed up. You rarely see such a bold stroke from the Law of Unintended Consequences. He should complain to somebody. Oh, I guess that turned out to be you.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    18. Re:Booyah! by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You'd think, if it was a genuine secret conspiracy, that PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

      Methinks you may well have been drafted into the tinfoil hat brigade. A General Draft would require YEARS worth of infrastructure to be built: we don't HAVE the facilities to house or train that many new recruits/draftees/etc.

      Remember, armchair generals study strategy and tactics. REAL Generals study logistics, and the logistics for a massive draft just aren't there. . .

    19. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question for you: Do you have your tinfoil hat on?

    20. Re:Booyah! by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 5, Informative

      You, Sir, Are on crack.
      I'm currently a member of the US Air Force. There's currently a program in place not only to let people out, but to let us out AHEAD of schedule. Aparently, for some odd reason, about 2-3 years ago, recruiting went through the roof, and now the Air Force is manned above what it's currently authorized by law. This Force Shaping program is the first stage in getting down to the target manning levels.

      They are allowing personel out in almost all career fields, Including computer oriented ones. If this doesn't reduce down to the needed levels, they'll start refusing re-enlistments and forcing retirements. I don't know about the other branches, but round here, people are most definately able to leave.

      --
      Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
    21. Re:Booyah! by Zareste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm blind in one eye. Nyah nyah. Guess the government Nazis will have to get someone else to mutilate for publicity wars.

      Still, I did get the draft papers when I was eighteen. I vaguely recall the wording:
      "Would you die for your country? Of course you would! Now is your chance! Please sign here. Your signature will contribute to our 'Not throwing your ass in jail' resistance effort and enter you into our 'Being shoved overseas and watching people die and being traumatized beyond any conceivable help' sweepstakes! Enter now, slave!"

      There were a few differences here and there but that's the gist of it. Good luck escaping to Mexico.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    22. Re:Booyah! by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, I was a comm geek. Didn't stop me from spending time in the hospital recuperating from a firefight. Trust me, it doesn't matter what level of geek you are -- you'll still learn to run-n-staff for every one combat arms soldier.
      That's because you were dumb enough to go into the Army! :) :) Me, I sat out the Cold War (mumble) feet under the North Atlantic. Hot coffee, hot food, predictable deployment schedules... It was almost as good as being in the Air Farce.
    23. Re:Booyah! by Charlton+Heston · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being gay is very handy too. Don't ask don't tell? Well --- if they are shooting at me, I'm definitely telling.

      --
      Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
    24. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody boomer fags have it all good. Don't join the submarine world unless you can get boomer. Fast attack has both the worst of the surface fleet (unpredictable schedules, extended deployments) and the submarine fleet (cramped spaces, long work hours). I've learned my lesson, the next boat I go to is the civilian fleet.

    25. Re:Booyah! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to the articles, Rumsfeld says he won't ask for a draft. As long as he feels that way, there won't be a draft.

      I'd bet that if Bush wins re-election, he will suddenly find a critical need for a draft. Amazing how the need to get win an election keeps officials from supporting unpopular issues.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    26. Re:Booyah! by mp3phish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you on fucking crack?

      What do you think the draft is? WHat do you think happened in WWII and vietnam? Do you think people were trained in "facilities to house or train that many new recruits"? Do you live in 2004?

      The draft is real, like it or not. The government maintains the selective service specifically so they can draft people immediately when needed. Volumes of poeple, Hundreds of thousands if needed.

      You are sadly mistaken if you believe for one second that the US Government has no infrastructure to draft people. It can happen in a heartbeat. It doesn't take "years of planning and building"

      It sounds like you are the one with the tinfoil hat on. I think the metal is seeping into your bloodstream and giving you poisoning.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    27. Re:Booyah! by Qrlx · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's currently a program in place not only to let people out [of the military], but to let us out AHEAD of schedule

      Right, that's exactly why they need a DRAFT. Becuase too many of the volunteers are saying "hey, you know what, this is a raw deal" and punching out when their 2 years are up.

      It's pretty well established that the numbers in the active service and esp. the reserves are dwindling. Not that I'd expect much else considering how our govt. has reduced veterans benefits tremendously over the past few years.

    28. Re:Booyah! by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Air Force doesn't take draftees. The draft is only for the purpose of bolstering the ranks of the Army. So the question is, did the Army experience the same overrecruitment? Given how much I see them trying to recruit on campus, I doubt it.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    29. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, the air force never has problems with recruiting. Its is in the army where drating comes in handy. Secondly, even during times of draft you have to let people come out the other end of the system.. Ohterwise you end up with a bunch of bear-gutted middle aged men running around playing war.

    30. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So shes dumb for not realizing they teach you basic infantry tactics before they train you in anything else. Who can be so stupid as to think oh because i joined as a cook ill never see any combat.

    31. Re:Booyah! by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you are wrong. When I went to boot camp at Parris Island, SC in 1992 we slept in three story buildings that housed six, sixty-man platoons per floor. When a friend of mine went to Parris Island in the late 1960's (right after the draft was instituted he slept in tents. The infrastructure is there, were a draft to be instituted tomorrow, our militart would have no problems handline the added influx of recruits.

    32. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are letting plenty of folks out, especially from the Air Force.
      There is really no need to worry about a draft.
      Avoiding enlistment by being disqualified or getting tossed out is a breeze.
      Please people, get a clue! All you need to do is declare yourself a faggot, test positive for drugs, or fail to meet the grade in any number of ways.
      No one ever served who did not consent to do so.

    33. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto

    34. Re:Booyah! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah.
      Thats the Air Force.
      I guess I should have specified a little better: I doubt, seriously, if the Air force, Navy or Coast Guard will be in need of a draft to maintain staffing; In the event that the Draft does start up, I imagine people will be lining up to join those services to avoid being drafted into the Army or Marines.
      But I was only really writing about the Army.
      Sorry about that.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    35. Re:Booyah! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      > Otherwise you end up with a bunch of beer-gutted
      > middle aged men running around playing war.

      You ever been in the Army?

      That's EXACTLY who is running the show!

      I specifically remember during my time in the 1960's of seeing a "beer-gutted old sergeant" yelling at some young guy to "shape up and look like a soldier". I nearly cracked up - which would have gotten me in trouble.

      Trust me, the military IS run by middle-aged, beer-gutted men playing war.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    36. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what psychologists call projection.

      Its neat to see science in action.

    37. Re:Booyah! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Informative

      Someone with diabetes who's dying from it is typically *NOT* in a coherent mental state. It's like being drunk, but far, far stronger, and from what I have heard (never experienced it myself but I did witness it happening toa friend on many occasions) it's not at all pleasant like being drunk is. It's like feeling a hangover *during* being drunk instead of after. But basically when blood sugar is too low, the body isn't getting enough fuel. Muscles are weak, heartbeat is slow, coordination is poor, and most notably, the brain is starving for energy and thus the person behaves in a disoriented manner similar to being drunk, but a lot stronger (can't remember his name, doesn't know where he is, doesn't know what day it is, doesn't know what's going on.)

      Do you want someone in that state to be at the trigger of a machine gun?

      It's a really insidious thing when someone has a low-blood sugar event like that. Because it makes his mind foggy enough that he's not able to tell what's going on, and doesn't see the danger himself. If it's in a social setting, then the first indication that something is wrong is everyone *else* noticing that he's acting really, really out-of-touch with what's going on. It's sometimes really hard to differentiate that fine line between someone just daydreaming and being out of sorts versus someone actually having a medical emergency. In both cases the person himself will assure you that everything is fine.

      I was friends for a long time with someone with strong diabetes. It was uncomfortable being in that position of having to decide whether or not to get forceful and heavy-handed about *making* him have to eat something - it's socially unpleasant to make a mistake and get that forceful when it turns out there was nothing wrong, so often I would end up having to wait to see if it got any worse before taking action.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    38. Re:Booyah! by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And,

      All I know is that I only got a *real* job after Bush became President.

      Humm...

      Seems that, personal, anecdotal evidence is bogus evidence.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    39. Re:Booyah! by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're more than welcome to think in my Church, even though you are a secular fundamentalist.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    40. Re:Booyah! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, they didn't. My good friend works in the Pentagon in the Force Development group for the Army, and they certainly don't have an overrecruitment problem. Apparently, the hot joke around the office these days is "An Army of One: that's how many soldiers we have left for future deployments".


      The Army is experiencing a serious manpower crunch. Probably because military careers don't have as much prestige as they once did and pay so damn poorly. And deals like the Army Reserve don't seem so hot any more now that they are pretty much brought into every active conflict in large numbers to bolster the ranks of the regular forces.

    41. Re:Booyah! by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you think the draft is? WHat do you think happened in WWII and vietnam? Do you think people were trained in "facilities to house or train that many new recruits"? Do you live in 2004?

      What you're missing is that in the case of WW2 we were suddenly--overnight--in a major war with multiple world powers. Money came out of the faucet, and we built everything that was needed with little regard to cost and every emphasis on speed.

      As for Vietnam, it didn't happen overnight. The system had years to prepare for the numbers of draftees required.

      Unless there was a serious emergency (real or manufactured, whatever floats your boat) you would NOT see an instant induction of hundreds of thousands.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    42. Re:Booyah! by Cousin+Scuzzy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am on crack! (Take note, Selective Service officers.)

    43. Re:Booyah! by smchris · · Score: 1

      My 272-draft-number ass eventually ended up sharing a cube with a guy who volunteered for a _second_ combat infantry tour. A fairly dark-spirited guy who once hinted that he knew more than a little Laotian. When I told him I was an amateur radio operator in high school, he smirked that I could have ended up next to him -- only carrying about 80 lbs., wishing it were a gun and wishing I wouldn't be the first one who'd get picked off.

      The same could probably be said for a lot of computer-savy kids today.

      "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is adamant that he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft...."

      So it's a done deal? (My little weathervane on how English is spoken in this White House).

    44. Re:Booyah! by YomikoReadman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are 100% wrong on that. As another member of the USAF, who does work in a 3C career field, which deals entirely with Communications, Command and Control Systems, their is no issue with enlistees signing on for 4 years(which is the minimum term of enlistment, btw), and choosing not to extend. As a matter of fact, this is actually expected for a large part, as there are several fields where the attrition rate is enormous, again, it is expected.

      The Draft is instituted at a point in time where there is a shortfall in bodies; not necesarily in a particular career field. Oh, and for the record, personnel in my AFSC, Computer Programming, are being denied early retirement, as well as those in most other Computer Fields.

      Insofar as a targeted draft goes, I think it's a bunch of bunk. The United States military is an all-volunteer force for a reason; and as such has remained highly motivated, and will continue to be that way as long as it remains an all volunteer force. I'd expect to see more force shaping, possibly in the form of reassignments done on a voluntary basis first; and if that fails to bring numbers to an acceptable level, then non-vols will be selected for retraining. If both of those measures fail to bring numbers then you finally get to a decent likely hood of a draft; but I wouldn't bet on seeing one prior to that.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    45. Re:Booyah! by jadel · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bill passing through the senate to reintroduce the draft is sponsored by none other than Senator Fritz Hollings, a Democrat who is quite famous for his attempts to cripple PC's so that Disney can keep Mickey safe from those evil internet people. I don't think this can really be construed as an attempt by the current US government to reintroduce conscription - it sounds more likely that it's just another attempt to make political hay.

    46. Re:Booyah! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      You ever been in the Army? That's EXACTLY who is running the show! I specifically remember during my time in the 1960's of seeing a "beer-gutted old sergeant" yelling at some young guy to "shape up and look like a soldier". I nearly cracked up - which would have gotten me in trouble. Trust me, the military IS run by middle-aged, beer-gutted men playing war.

      The army hasn't been like that for 20+ years. Really, you think your 40 years out of date point of reference is still accurate? Get a clue. The era of the fatass 80-IQ lifer sergeant shouting at draftees and enlist-or-go-to-prison volunteers is long gone.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    47. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      All I know about Bush is I had a job when Clinton was president.

      All I know about Bush and Clinton is that I had the same shitty job during both presidencies. I think they might both be assholes.

    48. Re:Booyah! by BinxBolling · · Score: 1

      Where did he present this as some sort of secret conspiracy?

      And a draft need not be huge; It could just be enough to get manpower up to the recruiting targets. For which there is surely enough training capacity.

    49. Re:Booyah! by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Actually you're right, soft of :) My point was, they may not intend you to live long enough for non-serious disease to matter.

      In a very bad war, a war in which resources are tested, planning and strategy give way to throwing bodies at the enemy.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    50. Re:Booyah! by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In fact, there's been a lot of democrats toying with the idea of reinstating the draft just to make people angry at the current administration.

      Moreover, since it probably won't happen, it's enough to make people believe it's a possibility.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    51. Re:Booyah! by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I've mentioned it several times... there are several democrats who merely need to mention this in order to scare people into voting against the current administration.

      If you're going to vote, please base your decision on important issues and not phantom issues like this one.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    52. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty well established that the numbers in the active service and esp. the reserves are dwindling. Not that I'd expect much else considering how our govt. has reduced veterans benefits tremendously over the past few years.

      Maybe you're too young to remember this, but the size of the US military (active aqnd reserves) peaked around 1987, and was deliberately scaled back by about 30% during 1991-1997 (because the Cold War was over).

      My point is: there is no problem finding volunteers. We'd need to have a much larger military before a draft would become necessary.

    53. Re:Booyah! by radar_uk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhh...no. Wrong, incorrect, off-base (pun intended). The Air Force does not need, want, endorse, or otherwise envision a draft.

      Sir.Cracked is right about the force shaping program. In point of fact, it's no secret that the Air Force is having a problem with getting people TO LEAVE. (something about patriotism, job satisfaction, being a part of something bigger than yourself)

      We don't WANT a draft, don't NEED a draft, and don't LIKE the draft.
      1. Draftees have to be trained like everyone else. Volunteers (by virtue of wanting to be there) tend to learn better than draftees. Since we need specific skillsets, more training is going to be required. (e.g. knowing Arabic does not an intelligence officer make)

      2. Draftees only stay for a limited amount of time. With a draft, the AF loses a well-established incentive program that has managed to keep a lot of people with needed skills for a long time. With a draft, we'll have a lot of people for two years, max.

      3. The AF has had an all-volunteer force (AVF) for over thirty years. There are but a handful of personnel still on active duty who joined when the draft was still in force. If we go back to a draft, the culture shift would be devastating. Every single policy decision, every strategy has, directly or indirectly, has to consider how it will impact the volunteer force. A draft would be more work than those skills gain.

      4. The skills the Selective Service is planning to draft all require careful security screening and trust. These are not areas that draftees would be just dropped into.

      5. Why draft when you can contract? Contractors can be found in every aspect of military forces. They're no longer being kept back in the US--they're on the front lines. Easier to buy a ready-made capability than draft it and force it out of the draftees. You draft infantry, not computer techs.

      6. The AF is doing pretty well, despite what "experts" on here might think. The Army might be hurting, but I doubt it. Look at the millions being poured into recruiting (airforce.com). The DOD isn't about to abandon this strategy.

      My opinions are my own.

    54. Re:Booyah! by SLot · · Score: 1

      In the late 80's, the average life of a Dragon gunner (sort of like a TOW) on the battlefield was 7 seconds. Unfortunately, it took 9 seconds to hit the target on average.

      At least that's what they told me right before I was volunteered to tote that son-of-a-bitch on my back.

      Ah, so glad to have served and cleared.

    55. Re:Booyah! by Ikoma+Andy · · Score: 1

      In WW2 the average life of a machine gunner once deployed was something like 18 hours.

      That's ridiculous. Please provide any supporting evidence you have, or clarify you statement..

    56. Re:Booyah! by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      You're confusing Type I and Type II diabetes. The latter is what you get for being a lardarse. The former has little to do with your weight.

    57. Re:Booyah! by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      I can't remember if being gunner in a tank gave me 20 seconds or 4 hours, but either way wasn't much better for me either. Just as glad to have served and cleared.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    58. Re:Booyah! by rodgerd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just tell them you're gay. What are they doing to do, demand to see videos?

      (And if they do, just think of it as practise for getting old and needing prostate exams).

    59. Re:Booyah! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      You're talking about not caring if someone will die in 24 hours from untreated diabetes if he'll only be in charge of a machine gun and will die in 18 hours from combat anyway. Well, unlike something like, say, cancer, which if not treated is serious in the long term but not the short term, diabeties is serious in the SHORT term if not treated. It's only non-serious if the regular treatment regimen can be carried out. IF so, it's no big deal. But if not, then it becomes instantly mentally debilitating - that very same day the treatment stops. I'd sooner put a drunk person in charge of that machine gun trigger than a diabetic who had gone 18 hours without access to his insulin, who had to survive on scant rations and is trying desperately to dole out the rations slowly so as to keep his blood sugar even so he doesn't become stupid, and who isn't entirely succeeding in this effort.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    60. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that you self-identify as a freak by using the term "secular fundamentalist," right? You probably also use terms like, "micro-evolution" and "creation science." Bet you don't use terms like adelphopoiesis though.

      I vote that in your school, we have daily recitals of passages from the Bhagavad-Gita broadcast through the school's PA system every morning during homeroom. Might want to throw a hadith or two in there while we are at it.

    61. Re:Booyah! by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Wow reprimaneded by a 3 digit user :) Actually I'm a type 2 (insulin resistant) diabetic i know quite a bit about it. I've done shit you *wouldn't believe* while hypo/hyperglycemic, and I agree they wouldn't be the best draftees. Let me repeat, I wasn't actually suggesting that we draft diabetics, I was just trying to point out that desperation is a relative term. What we consider unacceptable in peace time might seem pretty reasonable during war time.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    62. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe its just me but

      so screw anyone who says I'm not a patriot

      and

      if you have a boy or girl who are in high school, and they do NOT fully support the policies of the current administration, have them drop out if Bush gets reelected; the current system doesn't take people without high school diplomas

      seem incongruous. "volunteer when you feel like it, scam the system [and let some other poor schmuck do it] when you don't" isn't my idea of a patriot.

    63. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not evolution can produce new species really is a slightly different question than whether or not evolution occurs at all. The latter has actually been demonstrated, because of course it can happen much more quickly. Whether evolution is truly the origin of all life on earth is a different question yet. Distinguishing these is sound science, because the answers aren't necessarily the same (even though they probably are).

    64. Re:Booyah! by tuxtomas · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. Every year, a drill is run. Pages are printed of people to be drafted. The facilities are there.

      --
      Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
    65. Re:Booyah! by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      If I recieve draft papers I'm going to send my videos!

    66. Re:Booyah! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      More to the point, do you really want to be in the unit that the machine gunner is providing cover for, when the gunner's mind starts wandering due to low blood sugar? He could become a danger to his own unit, or even get the lot of you killed.
      It isn't whether HIS lifespan might be truncated because of his job's high hazard index, but whether his health issues might be hazardous to his entire unit, or even on a larger scale right up to the outcome of a war (such as, in a low-sugar state, giving away a major action and thereby handing victory to the opposition at a critical juncture).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    67. Re:Booyah! by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Would this early release program be similar to the one in the early 90s where only certain career fields could participate and only if your CO or first shirt authorized it. It was really a way to get rid of people who were not what they wanted in. Not nescesarily bad people, but people who do not fit the military cutter.

      If it is like the one then, try getting out if you are in a hard to fill career field, or are a favorite of the squadron leadership. If they like you, but your field is not hurting, then they will try to keep you in. When I was in, my first shirt told me that this program was a great way to get rid of people who were not right for the military. And there are a lot of them.

      I know people in right now who want out, but are not being let out. And everyone is letting computer people out early, some just hand them a pink slip. ;-)

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    68. Re:Booyah! by Aexia · · Score: 1

      Because Rumsfeld has proven to be a man of his word in the past. Riiiiiight.

    69. Re:Booyah! by smc13 · · Score: 1

      How does this get ranked a 5 informative? None of the websites are authoritative. They are worse then the drudge report. What is informative about the post? The Bush government isn't going to reinstate the draft - there is no need for it. There are to many military personal and no real need for them. The above post isn't even on topic. It doesn't mention a draft for computer types.

    70. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You, Sir, Are on crack.

      And you, arrogant military slut, are guilty of libel for publishing this accusation. You have no idea of the activities of the person you accuse, you in your fucking military hubris, feel you can get away with sayion anything you want because you're one of the "heroes". Fuck that shit.

    71. Re:Booyah! by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      Couple of questions

      The era of the fatass 80-IQ lifer sergeant shouting at draftees and enlist-or-go-to-prison volunteers is long gone.

      What replaced it?

      What are Hollywood screenwriters going to do now that they can't use the screaming parade sargeant prop?

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    72. Re:Booyah! by rark · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering how the whole gay-people-in-the-military issue was going to play out, should there be a draft. The last time we had a draft, there was significantly more societal stigma associated with being gay (not that there isn't now, but there is significantly less than 30 years ago) -- instead of going to canada, will a new generation of draft dodgers (for reasons good or ill) claim homosexuality? How can the government possibly prove that a person isn't bisexual?

    73. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semper Fi, fellow Marine!

    74. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was at MEPS about 2 weeks ago, and of all the people there, about 60 were Air Force, 70 were Army and 1 Marine (me :) Judging from the crowds the army gathers here in Sacramento Ca, Id say that it is unlikely they are expirencing recruitment troubles. 'Course nationally it could be a whole hell-of-a lot different.

    75. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have diabetes and let me tell you that's a fairly accurate analogy. It's like being drunk in the sense that you're disoriented, but at least 10 times more extreme.

      To give you an idea, even if you concentrate on a word in front of you, you can't focus your eyes. Muscles can just give out under even small strain (like holding something).

      I can tell you exactly what would happen to someone like me with a machine gun and not enough sugar: I would drop the machine gun, and attempt to eat the enemy (hopefully an enemy) soldier instead of shoot him.

    76. Re:Booyah! by danila · · Score: 1

      The question is - would American public support the attack on Iraq/Afganistan if they knew it would lead to draft in 2005? The question is, of course, rhetorical.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    77. Re:Booyah! by teamtunafish · · Score: 1

      If our dear President hadn't overcommitted us, this would not be happening, and our weekend soldiers would be coming home after their (promised) short tours. But no, he thinks he can go on using us as peons. I was in the Air Force during Nam, and we were proud to be all volunteer, even if some of us were against the war. I don't WANT some idiot who doesn't want to be there backing me up - not if my life depends on him. So VOTE, people, not only is it a good idea, it's also the only way we get out of this mess.

    78. Re:Booyah! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The era of the fatass 80-IQ lifer sergeant shouting at draftees and enlist-or-go-to-prison volunteers is long gone.

      What replaced it?

      The elistment of only volunteer soldiers rendered the shrieking jackass sergeant obsolete. Realizing that permitting jerks to abuse and lord it over new recruits would result in fewer volunteers, anyone identified as a jerk was generally awarded the Order of the Boot as soon as their current enlistment term ended. When I joined in '87 the army was very keen on emphasizing that we were all there voluntarilly and if one couldn't work well with others, one should just go home (you can quit for any reason in the first six months, no questions asked). Drill sergeants are very stern and loud, but they were nowhere near as bad as they were in the 60's (a la R Lee Ermey "Full Metal Jacket"). I remember only one incident in basic training, where a real jerk of a drill sergent in another platoon in my company punched a recruit in the stomach. He was gone from the training company the next day, and from what we heard, he was standing at a bus stop in civvies with his discharge papers five or six weeks later.

      What are Hollywood screenwriters going to do now that they can't use the screaming parade sargeant prop?

      Oh, they'll keep using that caricature for a long time. It's traditional. The difference between an abusive drill sergeant and a strict disciplinary one is obvious to someone under their command, but to a casual outside observer they both look the same. Besides, Hollywood writers don't care if they're accurate. Watch a couple episodes of The West Wing, for example, and puzzle over military absurdities like "the M-2 Bradley has a 120mm cannon", or plot devices like white house staff blackmailing a general who they discovered was wearing a medal on his uniform he was never awarded (someone would have noticed long before he became general and would've called bullshit on that; self-awarded medals are big no-no's; career-killing no-no's).

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    79. Re:Booyah! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Okay, I accept that the Air Force doesn't have this problem. But I still feel like the National Guard, and Army, i.e. the soldiers we'll rely on to occupy Iraq, are seeing more departures than new conscripts.

      One of three things will happen. (1) Air Force personnel will become occupation grunts in Iraq, (2) there will be a draft, (3) servicemen that were told they'd be in Iraq for one year will stay for two or three. They've already done #3 which leads to the immediate departure of many of those soldiers once their tour is up.

      I am certainly no expert, but plenty of people are concerned that unless we get a larger military, we will be stretched too thin. What if China decided to roll over Taiwan this morning? With so many troops in Iraq would we be able to do anything about it?

    80. Re:Booyah! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      I'm talking TRAINING and PROCESSING facilities. Yeah, the selective service is there. But a pipeline has TWO ends. You need not just physical facilities to house and train draftees, but you need instructors, drill sergeants, etc.

      None of which can be done instantly, it's a 1-2 year ramp-up to bring it all online. . .

      Like I said, the logistics just ain't there

    81. Re:Booyah! by pereuburoi · · Score: 1

      Ditto! 25 yrs in govt.

    82. Re:Booyah! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Oh, and in today's paper:

      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_dr af t13.html

    83. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and don't be black, either. That'll also reduce the risk.

    84. Re:Booyah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwan depends entirely on the credibility of the US's threat to nuke any country that stages a large-scale invasion of our allies.

      This is one of those few cases where having an unpredicatable, violent cowboy in the white house is advantageous.

    85. Re:Booyah! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Funny, I made the exact same comment when Bush came in to office, in the context of North Korea won't try anything since they have no idea how we'll respond, but they know it won't be pretty.

  2. never too late... by djocyko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to move to canada =\

    1. Re:never too late... by spazoid12 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or... to learn how to spell "Rob Malda".

    2. Re:never too late... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      In the past, people have been allowed to be conscience objectors, allowing them to serve in a non-military manner during the length of their "tour of duty". I wonder if this still would apply...or if a person could claim technophobia...

    3. Re:never too late... by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      Well I've already joined the Air Force, so I should be able to avoid the draft. Now if they'll ever let me go to basic.

    4. Re:never too late... by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Perhaps if you have no sense of what it means to serve your country in the first place, you ought to strongly consider moving to Canada, or some third world country where you belong.

    5. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just say your gay ... ?

    6. Re:never too late... by Caeda · · Score: 0

      "Perhaps if you have no sense of what it means to serve your country in the first place, you ought to strongly consider moving to Canada, or some third world country where you belong." Perhaps you'd better move there instead. As a "free" country includes the "freedom" to decide for yourself that you would never make it in a war, that you would never kill another person, would never use a gun, or perhaps that you belong to a religion which preaches peace at all costs and feel like wars are pointless. This country may be free because a few wars were fought and won, but that's not a reason to push someone who wont fight into one.

      --
      ~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
    7. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My gay what?

      Dude, is it that hard to tell the difference between "your", a possessive term, and the words "You" and "are" running into one another? May I make a suggestion: Avoid contractions. You do not have to use them.

    8. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the customs official kick your ass on your way outside our borders.

    9. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they ought to have "concientious objector" status, "I hate army food and those awful haircuts, but I could volunteer as a candy striper" status, "my momma wouldn't like it" status, and "just plain yellow" status.

    10. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everybody talks about how this ex-soldier served their country. Or how that ex-national guardsman did the same. However, I would think that people like Alan Greenspan are serving in a fashion that is orders of magnitude more contributory than pretty much any soldier ever has.

      There are lots of ways to serve one's country and it doesn't always mean to go and kill and possibly die. The presumption that everyone makes that being in the army is service while being an accountant isn't is just fucking stupid.

    11. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Religious reasons are one thing. But a draft will only happen in a time of national peril. If you are not willing to fight for, and possibly die for, your nation when its existence is threatened you are a coward. I feel sorry for you.

    12. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work anymore. Alot of jobs in the military suck ass so alot of people say they're gay to try to get out. You have to have proof, and most straight people won't go that far. Additionally the military isn't hunting down gays anymore. Forces are low enough as it is, there is no reason to reduce them further. Typically if you are gay you will just be counselled and sent back to work. Only if you are flagrantly gay and break the law or are extremely disruptive will the military 'kick you out for being gay' (because now its better for the military to have you out than in). Of course, you weren't kicked out for being gay, but the charge will be there to rub it into your records for future employers to see.

    13. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wrongo. I had to register with selective service after I came off active duty with the army despite the fact I was already in the IRR for another four years.

    14. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but that's not a reason to push someone who wont fight into one.

      Yeah -- just ask France!

    15. Re:never too late... by vipw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you're thinking of a different USA than the one being discussed. The last time the draft was instituted was during the Vietnam War, a conflict that didn't threaten the existence of the country. Not every American is willing to fight and die to keep their country the most powerful in the world, and there is no reason someone should be expected to.

    16. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How is this redundant? Aww, did the poor little patriots get their feelings hurt :-(?

    17. Re:never too late... by r_picmip+5 · · Score: 0

      Wow I know this is just a comment on Slashdot but this one really moved me.

    18. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found that Army food is surprisingly good, at least at Ft. Knox. 'Course, the way they worked us, any food would have tasted good. Still, I was surprised by the quality and "home-style"ness of it. The field rations got me all constipated (which is never fun, but especially not fun when you have to be active, like at boot camp :-P ), but were relatively palletable. I know food quality really isn't the subject of your post, but i just thought i'd throw in my two cents.

    19. Re:never too late... by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

      Don't accept slavery -- no how, no way.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    20. Re:never too late... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      You have to have proof, and most straight people won't go that far.

      Ok, so how exactly does one give such proof?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    21. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they had rations that were designed to constipate you, for when you're busy and don't have time for that.. um... shit. And they have other stuff to clean you out when you've got the new latrines dug.

    22. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage certificate. Photo of you kissing another guy or doing something lewd. A military psychologist certifying that he/she thinks you're gay and should be removed from service (which is unlikely).

    23. Re:never too late... by drDugan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Moving the argument to a person insult is truly the purview of people fighting for ideals difficult to defend.

      I also disagree from the "move to Canada" argument -- but only because it is a typical "if you don't like it, then leave" answer to fixing fundamental problems with what America is and has been doing.

      I am completely opposed to your world view, Shakrai -- mostly because I feel you have bought into a whole pack of lies and propaganda about America and our role and moral high ground with our actions.

      I believe that most "crises" that America has faced recently and ones we will face in the so-called "War" on terrorism are almost entirely caused by the actions of our own military and political leaders. Asking US citizens to partake and support these actions put most people with a broad context understanding of what is really going on globally in a very difficult situation.

      Leaving does not help in the big picture. However, it does remove the individual from the dilemma of personal conflict. People do not leave because they are cowards -- they realize that the US system gives then NO VOICE in what is happening and they realize that they are being used to ends far beyond their control. They also realize that by staying they have almost no ability to change the situation significantly enough to change its effect on their own lives or their loved ones and children.

    24. Re:never too late... by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      From the cut-and-paste the editor's comments department.

    25. Re:never too late... by paganizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking as a Disabled Veteran, bullshit.
      it's not cowardice, it's a lacking of the courage to fight for your convictions, whether they be to fight the enemies of the government, or to fight your enemies IN the government. But it's not a black & white issue.
      Some people just don't have what it takes.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    26. Re:never too late... by erlenic · · Score: 1

      I have to do that with the Air Force. Besides, they have you on inactive reserves for 4 years after your enlistment (if you did 4) and those guys get pulled well before a draft. They don't need congressional approval either.

    27. Re:never too late... by deanj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Just be sure and stay there once the people that are brave enough to stay and fight are done. :-)

    28. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh, maybe that is the plan behind the rations but they didn't really give us any warnings about it... The only advice i ever got was "be sure to chew the included gum", which i usually didn't do and may have been the problem. It wasn't so much the not-pooping that got to me, it was the attendant painful stomach cramps.

    29. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

      It seems to vary from place to place. I can tell you that eating at the Naval Academy in Annapolis for a while is enough to make boiled boots seem appetizing.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    30. Re:never too late... by gaijin99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Perhaps if you have no sense of what it means to serve your country in the first place, you ought to strongly consider moving to Canada, or some third world country where you belong.
      Well Bub, I don't know what country *you* want to serve, but *my* country is the USA and we're based on the idea of freedom. Slave armies are not, by definition, something that can be associated with freedom. The draft is the singular most un-American idea that has ever been put forth, and as a patriot I find it revolting that we've allowed it to continue as long as we have.

      I'm continually astonished that people who will object to environmental regulation, "because it violates my property rights", will at the same time support the notion of the draft. Working to abolish the draft, in all forms, sounds like my patriotic duty. Blind support of the government, and forcing others to die for, and to kill for, policy they disagree with hardly sounds like serving *my* country. Maybe you live in a dictatorship, but I live in the USA.

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Senator Carl Schurz -- February 29, 1872. That's patriotism. The word for what you are endorsing is "jingoism". I prefer patriotism, it takes more thought, and requires more bravery.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    31. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohhh noooo! He'll think I'm a coward if I leave!
      Believe me, I'll take that over risking my life any day.

    32. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

      Historically, that doesn't work during draft times. If you're already in the military, It's also rather often a dishonorable discharge-- not a good thing to have on your record, believe me.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    33. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      never too late...to move to canada

      So, your testimony is that Canada is harboring terrorists?

    34. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment is not flamebait. This is one of the huge problems with slashdot. Moderators will mod down someone with a political view different than their own.

    35. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Vietnam War, a conflict that didn't threaten the existence of the country.

      Look up "domino theory".

    36. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A conscientious objector would probably not be able to get out of things like language translation or computer maitenance, as these aren't military jobs in the first place.

      If you really don't want to serve in any position in the military during a draft, your options are basically A. prove yourself unfit for service B. run away to where you won't be found until it passes or C. Spend a couple years in jail, as some who refused to work in the conscientous objector positions they were offered chose during Vietnam.

      There are usually other outs (students, people who do great works in the community, etc), but we'd have to wait for a draft to be enacted to know what would and would not be allowed this time.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    37. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

      Gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and socialized healthcare? Sure, you got it! I'm willing to give up huge portions of my salary for that. See ya!

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    38. Re:never too late... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2, Funny
      Um ... The Guv'munt(TM) gave you a way to avoid the draft on-a-plate:

      Fire up Diana Ross's "I'm Coming Out" on your stereo, and tell them how you like a man in uniform.

      Sometimes, prejudice can be good.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    39. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I am completely opposed to your world view, Shakrai -- mostly because I feel you have bought into a whole pack of lies and propaganda about America and our role and moral high ground with our actions.

      Excuse me? You know nothing about me. You couldn't even be bothered to check my extensive posting history -- had you done that you would have seen numerous posts opposing the Iraq war and the current administration. If that's buying into "the whole pack oflies and propaganda" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

      I believe that most "crises" that America has faced recently and ones we will face in the so-called "War" on terrorism are almost entirely caused by the actions of our own military and political leaders

      Did I say the current event was a crisis? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that in the event that a draft was ever reinstated it would likely be a life or death situation for our country. Then I went on to point out the reason why I think this is so: Mainly the fact that if we currently had a draft then the idiots who are currently in charge would not be able to launch these unjustified wars (Iraq -- not Afghanistan -- that was completely justified) because the public wouldn't stand for it. That was the lesson of Vietnam. Whereas with the current all-volunteer force most of the public doesn't really have a stake in it. The rich people who are in charge certainly don't have a stake at all. With a fair draft system (read the Selective Service website) like we currently have they would have a stake in it. Do you think Bush would be so gung-ho to take us into Iraq if his daughters had to go?

      I still fail to see how my previous statements can be seen as buying into a pack of lies and propaganda. Please explain that to me -- or just maybe you were the person moving the argument to the level of insults.

      they realize that the US system gives then NO VOICE in what is happening and they realize that they are being used to ends far beyond their control

      I guess all those elected representatives on all levels of Government (local, state and Federal) count for nothing then. You do have a voice. People who think they don't have a voice and give up (by moving to Canada or even worse: not bothering to vote) are the true enemies of any democracy.

      For the record I wouldn't go if they reinstated a draft for Dubya's oil wars in Iraq. But I would go if I believed our way of life to be threatened or in danger. And I would have the courage to stand up for what I believed in -- running away to Canada is the cowards way out. Mod me flamebait instead of debating me -- you only prove me correct.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe this comment was modded insightful.

      There is a world of difference between a soldier and an accountant. Sure, both an accountant and a soldier can serve their country. But one is risking his life while the other is risking his paycheck. What is the worst thing that could happen to Mr Greenspan? People boo him until he quits his post? How about for the soldier?

      What kind of reward does the soldier get for doing his job? Not much. How about for Mr. Greenspan? Yeah, he's recognized across the world. So Mr. Greenspan doesn't have a hazardous job, is recognized across the world for his sucesses, and has little consequences for failure. How does this fare for the soldier?

      People in the military should be honored for risking their necks vice being booed on slashdot. The fact that they are booed instead disgusts me.

    41. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Ohhh noooo! He'll think I'm a coward if I leave!

      Go ahead and run to Canada then. If there's ever a situation where the US needs to reinstate a draft do you really think Canada (or anywhere in the World) is going to be a safe place to be?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    42. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Speaking as a Disabled Veteran, bullshit.

      And my Grandfather lost 75% of his lungs in France during WW2. He had a hellva lot more respect for those that stood up for what they believed in (and paid the price for it by going to jail) then those that ran away to Canada.

      Some people just don't have what it takes.

      Then take equivalent civilian service. Join the local volunteer fire-dept (that's an out if I'm not mistaken). That is an option available to you. Running away is cowardice in my eyes. Saying that "I don't have an obligation to my country" (like many of the people in this discussion have) and comparing the draft to slavery is disgusting. Maybe they should leave if that's their opinion of our country.

      There's simply no excuse for running away when you have the option of performing similar civilian service and giving back to your country in another way during the time of crisis.

      BTW: Thank you for your service to our country in whatever service and war that you fought.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    43. Re:never too late... by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Except now, National Guard just means you get to go in the "never-know-where-or-when-the-guerillas-are-gonna- hit" stage of the war, as opposed to regular's who have the enemy regulars fleeing before them. . .

    44. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then take equivalent civilian service.

      Ok. I'm a university educated Finn who refused the compulsory military service and chose civilian service only because otherwise I'd faced prison sentence of an indeterminate length. Here is my risk analysis:

      Military service: a certain death fighting hopeless delaying action (waiting for what? help from the west/NATO? don't make me laugh) against an invading superpower capable of taking on the USA itself.

      Civilian service: have people pissing on you during your service and face severe risk during wartime. After the war, I'd probably end up in termination camps (witness the breakup of Yugoslavia) for all male adults over 16.

      Flee to a neutral country: never return to your home country, stay alive, make a career, have children and live a good life abroad.

      Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

    45. Re:never too late... by destroyingworld · · Score: 4, Informative

      like this?

    46. Re:never too late... by raodin · · Score: 2

      Err, leaving the country because you feel you have no voice anymore, not in response to a draft, but in general disgust at the state of politics, is not cowardice. People who leave the country when they feel there's no point trying anymore aren't the true enemies of a democracy - the idiot politicians who alienated those people enough to consider leaving are.

    47. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh yeah, and why not look up "Trickle down economics" while you're there. All the same amount of bullshit.

    48. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're asking a lot from this audience.

    49. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm.

      I think your reaction was precisely the kind that the parent was referring too.

      You are equating risk of one's life with the value of the service they are providing. The parent seems to dispute that, and I agree. So what if Mr. Greenspan is not in a hazardous position, that does not have any bearing on the contribution he provides for the country. A soldier may be risking his life, but for what? I will definitely agree that through the course of time, there have been many instances where soldiers were heros, but it is silly to think that is always the case just because they put themselves at risk.

      With your irrevocably retarded argument, we would be led to conclude that Roy Horn is the greatest patriot.

      pfft.

    50. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As an active duty USAF NCO, I BITTERLY oppose a draft. The volunteer force does a superb job, and we don't need another Hollow Force of unwilling conscripts (or, in my service, unwilling enlistees fleeing the Army).
      Want more G.I.s with no draft?
      Pay us. We don't need non-union labor.

    51. Re:never too late... by nolife · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the exception of Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist strikes, the US has not had a conflict on our soil for about 150 years. You wonder why? The reason is because of our military force being what it is, not because of Alan Greenspan. If foreign forces and military powers ever attempt to make way into the US, you can run to Greenspan, I'll run to the Military.

      There are lots of ways to serve one's country and it doesn't always mean to go and kill and possibly die

      I agree 100% but comparing Greenspan to a soldier is not apples to oranges. People that put their own LIFE on the line for others on a daily basis or even just one strategic time get observed, recognized and noticed by a majority of society for that sacrifice. You may feel that the extra recognition is unjust or not required but I think the majority of people do when they consider it could have been them that had to do it. If Greenspan slips up one time, he collects his thoughts, learns and moves on. If a firefighter, policeman, or someone in combat slips up, there may not be a second chance.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    52. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dishonorable discharge doesn't mean much in reality. You lose your (nowadays almost non-existant) veteran benefits. It's also a bad mark against you in *some* job interviews. But then again, if you just explain that the military wasn't your cup of tea and you didn't like the idea of senseless killing of other humans by order of supreme evil (the government in all its corruption -- and not just the US government... all governments), and if you actually have markettable skills, then chances are you won't have trouble finding a job. The military really like to scare people into believing they can forever brand them though.
      Anyway cowboys like GWB and playboys like Clinton shouldn't be allowed to send troups into battle. They're not wise enough. They're just dumb assholes. The only people who I'd feel comfortable giving that power to are men like Mahatma Ghandi. If he told you to kill someone, then at least you'd know there was a damn good reason for it. It's too bad only dumb assholes get to wield power, but that's the nature of this dimension...
      And mind you, I say this as a former marine who was honorably discharged.

    53. Re:never too late... by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Sort of harder to do these days; the gov has been installing a massively complete electronic monitoring system along most of the canadian border for the last year.
      However, the mexican border still seems to be wide open...

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    54. Re:never too late... by wyleus · · Score: 1

      People who think they don't have a voice and give up (by moving to Canada or even worse: not bothering to vote) are the true enemies of any democracy.

      Enemies of democracy? Maybe democracy is my enemy..

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

      Freedom is about having choices. The choice to move to Canada is a choice to free yourself from what you see as other people's stupidity who somehow feels they can impose their morality on you.

      Say, let's have a vote about what operating system you should use. Whatever America decides, you have to abide by. OK?

      Let's see what you think then about you having a voice in your democracy. You against 300 million braindead MicroZombies. Yeah, I know, "you have trust in the intelligence and wisdom of the American people, its constitution, its justice system, its political system, and the principles of democracy", don't you?

      For the record I wouldn't go if they reinstated a draft for Dubya's oil wars in Iraq. But I would go if I believed our way of life to be threatened or in danger.

      Well, I guess the head of your democracy thought that his way of life was threatened. Shame on you for thinking otherwise, coward.

      Now be a good patriot and go die in the name of producing more color TVs, operating systems, strong copyright laws and everything else that the democracy has decided on your behalf to hold dear. Truth, justice and the American way, isn't that what they call it?

      And I would have the courage to stand up for what I believed in

      Then stand stand up for for what you believe in. That's not the same thing as standing up for what some of your neighbors believe in -particulary those with loud voices, good connections, and lots of money to lobby for their own agenda.

      The US, EU and other so-called freedom loving countries have become too large and powerful. They forcefully export their values into ever-larger spheres, leaving dissenting people with fewer and fewer alternatives in the world to escape to.

      Our so-called coward is lucky at least to have a Canada to run to.

      Do not confuse democracy with freedom. Democracy is nothing more than having a tiny say in who your dictator is.

      The only vote that counts in my life is ME. Keep your lousy laws off my property.

      The best democracy is a SMALL democracy. Just enough to keep a lid on the rapists and murderers and thieves of the world, and let everyone else live and let live.

      There is no freedom in America, or anywhere else for that matter - except maybe in cyberspace (until they take over that too).

      Governments everywhere are way too large and powerful. Same thing applies to multi-national companies like MicroSoft and others.

      Why does everything on today's world have to be all or nothing?

      Why can't I just go live on a farm somewhere and everyone leave me alone and stop making decisions for me? Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone... Deal?

      How can anyone expect 300 million people to all abide by the same rules? Especially when the rule book is big enough to fill up a library all by itself?

      And people wonder why there there so many pissed-off terrorists in the world?

    55. Re:never too late... by Unregistered · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have no obligation to die (or even waste several years of my life as a firefighter) so that we can invade a country that can't hurt america full of people who would gladly die to kill americans just so George Bush can feel better about his small penis.

    56. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      I have no obligation to die (or even waste several years of my life as a firefighter) so that we can invade a country that can't hurt america full of people who would gladly die to kill americans just so George Bush can feel better about his small penis.

      That's the most asinine comment I've heard yet -- and my parent somehow gets modded -1, Flamebait. *Mutter*

      For the record nobody in this discussion talked about reinstating the draft. It will likely only happen in the event that the USA stands on the brink of defeat.

      They aren't going to reinstate the draft so we can invade the middle east. Why you ask? Look at Vietnam. If everybody has to fight then the public isn't going to support wars "So George Bush can feel better about his small penis". The argument for reinstating the draft so that these types of wars don't happen (as I said before would Dubya have marched us into Iraq if his daughters had to go?).

      What part of that is so hard to understand? Do you think if the politicians kids were subject to a draft that we'd really be in Iraq right now?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    57. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

      I know people who've bent over backwards trying to deal with dishonorable discharge issues, who at least felt it was the black mark on their record the military says it is. Your milage may vary, and as you said if you have a legitimate reason for that discharge, most people are probably going to be fairly understanding.

      I agree and I disagree with your second assertation. Ghandi would never tell you to kill anybody-- there would be no need for a military under his leadership: he didn't believe that violence solved problems ("An eye for an eye would only make the whole world blind"). He believed in reasoning with the sense of decency that most people have, instead. We've never really tried this style of diplomacy, so we can't really know what the results would be. It'd be an interesting experiment, though, and it is bothersome to me that the rich send in the troops and the poor fight the wars. It's very easy to be "brave" with the secret service following you around.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    58. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

      Actually that's why we have a Republic instead of a true democracy. My bad -- but my original point still stands. People that don't vote are the worse enemies of any state that democratically elects it's leaders.

      The US, EU and other so-called freedom loving countries have become too large and powerful. They forcefully export their values into ever-larger spheres, leaving dissenting people with fewer and fewer alternatives in the world to escape to.

      "So called freedom loving countries"? Do you have a problem with us? Perhaps you should move to China or North Korea if you don't like "freedom loving countries".

      Do not confuse democracy with freedom. Democracy is nothing more than having a tiny say in who your dictator is.

      I pity you for having no faith in our way of life. I have a lot more freedom then merely "choosing my dictator". You probably can't understand that or think I'm brainwashed. Your loss.

      There is no freedom in America, or anywhere else for that matter - except maybe in cyberspace (until they take over that too).

      There's freedom in cyberspace? WTF are you smoking? I've never used an ISP that didn't have some sort of AUP that said "We can terminate you for whatever reason we like with no advance warning". At least if I'm staging a peaceful protest on the side of the street nobody can stop me (in my country anyway). Cyberspace is controlled by multinational corporations -- they are concerned only with the bottom line and are ten times worse then any Government imho.

      Why can't I just go live on a farm somewhere and everyone leave me alone and stop making decisions for me? Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone... Deal?

      Whose saying you can't do this? I have neighbors on farms all around me and to the best of my knowledge nobody bothers them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    59. Re:never too late... by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      The US is not going to become endangered. Nobody has the Navy to get troops here, so the only reason we would possibly need a draft is to invade random countries for no good reason.

    60. Re:never too late... by lspd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Saying that "I don't have an obligation to my country" (like many of the people in this discussion have) and comparing the draft to slavery is disgusting.

      I was in the military and I'm 100% against the draft. The only point of a draft in this day and age is to avoid paying a fair market value for the labor. The whole point of this nonsence is to avoid increasing taxes. Here's some food for thought, quoted from a statement by congressman Ron Paul (Republican):

      Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.

      During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: " Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."

      Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: "...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

      President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

      In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.

    61. Re:never too late... by Bloody+Peasant · · Score: 1

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Senator Carl Schurz -- February 29, 1872. That's patriotism.

      Wow. That's one of the most inspiring quotes from history I've heard in a LONG time. If this is the origin of the "my country, right or wrong" quote thrown around by, as you say, jingoistic buffoons, then they're taking it way, way out of context.

      I'm also surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the origin of the draft in the US (the Civil War, or the war between the states, or the war of northern aggression :-) but... it didn't work then, it really didn't work in WWII or Korea or Vietnam. How anyone with a brain expects it to work in the current political situation is beyond me. Oh... right. Brain. Now I understand.

      --
      -- This .sig intentionally left meaningless.
    62. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your history books,

      In WWII Canada was at WAR before the US, so I doubt anyone would have run to canada to avoid the draft. *Vietnam maybe*.

      As a matter of fact people here in canada were being thrown in jail for not wanting to be part of the great commonwealth war mess of the mighty (snicker) british empire.

      If you are gonna throw tomatoes, at least get the labels right on the cans.

    63. Re:never too late... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is a world of difference between a soldier and an accountant. Sure, both an accountant and a soldier can serve their country. But one is risking his life while the other is risking his paycheck.

      And one is contributing towards a peaceful society, whilst the other is killing people. It's fallacious to suggest that putting yourself at risk implies that the deed is therefore good.

      The problem is that not all wars are necessarily just. In the case of risk of invasion (eg, World War 2), then the soldier is certainly doing a great service to his country. But the wars America has been involved with lately hardly come anywhere close to it.

      There are arguments for and against whether such wars are justified - but it's absurd to suggest that the original poster is not "serving his country" because he doesn't want to be forced to take part in whatever wars the US decides to start in future, and as the other poster said, there are plenty of more constructive ways one can serve their country.

      People in the military should be honored for risking their necks vice being booed on slashdot. The fact that they are booed instead disgusts me.

      It seems to me that generally (ie, outside of Slashdot) it's the accountants, businessmen and so on that are booed or at best ignored, whilst the military are looked on highly, and it seems to be a great taboo to say otherwise (I remember when the Iraq war started, people would say "It doesn't matter that you were against the war - now you have to support our boys"). But personally, I'd prefer a world were accountants were viewed more highly than the military.

    64. Re:never too late... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      One of the historical problems with being a conscientious objector in the US was that you had to be opposed to all war. You couldn't make a distinction between WWII and the war in Vietnam, for example. In other words, there couldn't be any thinking or logic involved in your decision.

      Choosing freedom by going to Canada IS taking a stand on what you believe in. How does choosing a different form of slavery or going to jail support the idea of freedom?

      Furthermore, your conclusion that a draft would make it harder to fight an unpopular war is not supported by history. It took more then a decade of draftee deaths in Vietnam and public protest at home before the war ended and it's not clear that unpopularity was the ultimate reason for our giving up.

    65. Re:never too late... by cdrudge · · Score: 1
      A conscientious objector would probably not be able to get out of things like language translation or computer maitenance, as these aren't military jobs in the first place.
      You're right, they aren't military jobs per se, but neither is laundry and cooking, but both were still draftable jobs in the military. C.O.s objected to military service period, not just combative rolls. Repairing a computer that ultimately launches a missle means just as much as the one who pulls a trigger firing a bullet.
    66. Re:never too late... by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      Wow. That's one of the most inspiring quotes from history I've heard in a LONG time. If this is the origin of the "my country, right or wrong" quote thrown around by, as you say, jingoistic buffoons, then they're taking it way, way out of context.
      It is a nice quote, isn't it? However the Senator was twisting the "my country, right or wrong" people's language against them, he didn't actually coin the phrase. Still, I prefer his version over the original.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    67. Re:never too late... by God+Takeru · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with you on the ideas, but the military does not work that way. I am morally opposed to having any involvement with the military, for the exact reason you stated, but that is not what the army means when they talk about CO status.

      Conscientious objectors by military status were offered jobs doing things that were not essentially "military based," such as those above. What they believed and what they were offered are two different things. If you were to claim CO status, they could still assign you to non-combative positions. If you were to object to all offered positions, you could be effectively thrown in prison. Some people chose this route during Vietnam, rather than fleeing or being compliant with the government's demands for service.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    68. Re:never too late... by patternjuggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He had a hellva lot more respect for those that stood up for what they believed in (and paid the price for it by going to jail) then those that ran away to Canada.

      Unfortunately, as admirable as standing up for your principles is, you have to base your actions on how they might hurt others. It's probably easier to support a family in Canada than in jail.

      Running away is cowardice in my eyes. Saying that "I don't have an obligation to my country" (like many of the people in this discussion have) and comparing the draft to slavery is disgusting.

      You have an obligation to do what's right, and for the most part you just follow the law and pay your taxes. You might do a a few things you find distasteful because the law says so, and you might break a few rules without hurting anyone else, but if it's a big deal you can resort to voting or media attention to try and get it changed. If you're asked to put your life in danger, then you have to look pretty hard at why you're being asked to do that.

      If the country is truly in peril, then you serve to protect your loved ones, or your way of life, or whatever is important to you that's threatened. Getting killed in some foreign country for no good reason or going to jail doesn't do any of those much good.

    69. Re:never too late... by wyleus · · Score: 1

      Actually that's why we have a Republic instead of a true democracy.

      When I read that, I didn't know you meant. So I googled "republic democracy" and this is what I got on my first hit:

      http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388

      Which is one excellent article that basically repeats what I said about the evils of democracy.

      IMHO, regardless what the US appears to be on paper, I say it is a democracy in practice - judging by tangible results. The principles embodied in the constitution, which I admire, mean little in today's world as they have not been upheld over time. If they had been respected, I wouldn't be complaining and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      The forces of democracy along with a perverse form of capitalism have slowly whittled away at constitutional ideals like personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness over the years, ingeniously finding ways to bypass them, find loopholes, etc..

      My bad -- but my original point still stands. People that don't vote are the worse enemies of any state that democratically elects it's leaders.

      Well, I thought my previous arguments might make you think twice about that conclusion, but apparently not. People don't vote because they don't believe in the system, feel powerless to change it, and are disillusioned by it. More about this later.

      "So called freedom loving countries"? Do you have a problem with us?

      Yes, I have a problem with it. I have a problem when countries that profess to love freedom are acting to extinquish freedoms at every opportunity. Not only the freedoms of their own citizens, but those of countries beyond their own boundaries too.

      Have you ever read 1984? Look around you...

      How aware you are of this kind of behavior is a matter of personal choice. For every example that I see, I'm sure there are a thousand other instances happening that I never find out about. I won't write a book about it here, but I assume you can think of a few pertinent examples yourself without my help.

      Perhaps you should move to China or North Korea if you don't like "freedom loving countries".

      I love freedom loving countries. Can you tell me about any? I can see millions of people that love freedom, and the best example of these people I can think of is the free software community. Most other people I know or have met offline also love their freedom. I don't know of any countries that practice anything close to it, though, all I see are more and more laws and restrictions and bigger and bigger governments.

      Yes, I agree that the US or Europe or whatever is probably better than China or North Korea, but the distinction in my mind is not as clear as it is in yours. That's partly because I have never lived in these countries and know that what I have heard about them is colored by the media.

      In the same spirit, I'd probably agree that Sun Microsystems is less evil that Microsoft. Doesn't mean I love Sun, nor do I want them to take over the world.

      The world ain't black and white, nor goood vs. evil the way G.W. paints it to be.

      I pity you for having no faith in our way of life.

      You are not the only one. I pity myself too, and in a way envy you. I would love to have faith in it. I did, when I was younger but have seen too much injustice to hang on to that faith.

      And I think that's the main difference between your opinion and mine: the crux of our debate. You believe in the system, at least partially. You believe it can work, even though you probably recognize that it's imperfect.

      As for me, while I don't see everything as completely dark and depressing, I do not have anywhere near your hope and optimism about the world and politics.

      There is too much concentration of power.

      You probably can't understand that or think I'm brainwashed. Your loss.

      No, I see where you're coming from, and I can see that you're not brainwa

    70. Re:never too late... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Then take equivalent civilian service. Join the local volunteer fire-dept (that's an out if I'm not mistaken)."

      Somehow I doubt it. Even being a member of your state guard (if your state has one) doesn't exempt you from the draft.

    71. Re:never too late... by marnerd · · Score: 1

      You made that up! Everyone knows there is no February 29th!

      --
      Not so much a sig as a lack of one.
    72. Re:never too late... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2

      Uh, when there was a draft, rich people got out of it easily, or haven't you been paying attention to our current administration? How is that possibly any better, other than giving those bastards the "nod nod wink wink" they need to shoot down accusations of class warfare?

      --
      [o]_O
    73. Re:never too late... by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Other outs:

      Having "other priorities".

      "unable to serve because of his bad knees, but somehow is able to totter along as a recreational runner."

      "all the positions had been taken by blacks and hispanics."

      Too busy on the wrestling team.

      Or having an anal cyst.

      (Source mostly from here.

      Remember, when they come for you, tell them you have other priorities; if it was good enough for the vice-president, it must be good enough for you!

    74. Re:never too late... by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Actually, the draft worked quite well in the US Civil War, and very well in WW II.

    75. Re:never too late... by rodgerd · · Score: 1
      Actually, it is.

      Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.
    76. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the exception of Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist strikes, the US has not had a conflict on our soil for about 150 years. You wonder why? The reason is because of our military force being what it is,

      No, it has as much to do with geography as it does anything else. Japan is a heck of a lot more worried about North Korea than we are because, they don't have the luxury of 3000 miles of ocean to keep the peace.

    77. Re:never too late... by sapgau · · Score: 1

      Very well quoted.
      Although I felt the draft was fundamentally wrong with the American spirit, this has been the clearest statement yet.
      A draft seems to be the last resort a democratic government should use when facing a very clear threat to their existence. Somehow a draft today is not justified.

    78. Re:never too late... by identity0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I usually don't get involved in these kinds of discussions, but I felt I had to add my story.

      My grandpa dodged the draft. He got a draft notice just like your grandpa, the difference being that he was 15 and being asked(well, told) to join the Imperial Japanese Army. I don't exactly blame him for dodging that one. Should he have gone to jail?

      Now, I agree that the U.S. is more worthy of recieving service than imperial Japan, but I disagree with your argument that one owes one's life to the government. Your argument could just as easily apply to a guy living in Japan, Germany or Iraq as an American. Should an Iraqi who was told to serve Saddam have an obligation to do that or otherwise serve "his country", ie, his government?

      I feel that serving the current U.S. government is good, even if I dislike the current president. But the reasons why I think it is good have to do with things like the consent of the governed and freedom to oppose the gov't, things which my grandpa did not have. I think that instituting the draft would undermine the message that the U.S. is trying to send to the world. Right now, they could point at any U.S. soldier and say, he is there because he supports the country, believes in it enought to risk his life. After a draft, all you can say is that he's there because it's better than jail time.

      Please think about what they're being told to do - to risk, and possibly give, their lives. Right now all they're doing is asking that you do, but in a draft that request turns into a demand. What right do they have to do that? My grandfather had at least one older brother die in the army - what gave them(the gov't) the right to take that? Because he was born there? Because he benefitted somehow from the gov't?

      I feel that serving America is good, but that there is no obligation of service to any government.

    79. Re:never too late... by 680x0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, even while the military is scrambling to get more Arab linguists, they recently discharged at least seven of them. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. So, I have no sympathy for the military needing experts in languages (human or computer).

    80. Re:never too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and socialized healthcare?

      I thought you were talking about the Great State of [Arnold voice] Caal-e-fonya.

      OT: I think California should also legalize the growing of hemp and marijuana to help the economy recover since the computer industry can't do it and then charge anyone from Texas 10 times the market price to fuck them back for fucking us in the "energy crisis" that they created with the help EDS and the executive branch.

      And they should sell it with commercials with some images of suburban teenagers (who's parents are _sure_ their kids don't do drugs), huge, deep green fields of pot and a tagline of "Killer weed comes from happy pot plants, and happy pot plants come from California" and then in a low disclaimer-style voice "(All California Gold is Certified Organic and checked for quality by Snoop-Dogg)"

    81. Re:never too late... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I live in the USA, and the people here, although I don't trust them farther than I can throw them, are my responsabiliy as I am theirs. This is the basis of our society, and I'd die to keep this world going.

      There's a difference between this war, and WW2 and WW1. In both world wars, we were attacked. In WW1, our merchant ships were being sunk. People protested against the draft because the enemy wasn't attacking our shores. But nonetheless, we were attacked.

      In WW2, we had pearl harbor. We almost didn't need a draft with the amount of support for a war that generated. Even though the whole thing is suspicious, both my grandpa's faught, and my mothers father saw a lot of stuff in that war, he never talks about it. That's the price he payed to stop 3 tyrranies (Or rahter, a tyrrany, a dictatorship, and a bunch of crazy japanese people) who's ideas would've destoryed humanity as we know it.

      In vietnam, the only reason we faught was to stop the experiment known as communism and attack soviet russia on foreign soil, like we did in the middle east (and we created a bunch of dictatorships in the process). Our lives weren't in mortal danger, our economies in danger of being destroyed. Infact, there was no real reason for the vietnam war, and people refused to go through a draft.

      In a time of war, a draft shouldn't be needed. A Draft is there to take the fearful and pair them with the fearless. The fearless are the ones who run into combat and know what they must do. Nowadays, people are afraid. They view their own police force as a occupational army, and the police act that way. When there's such widespread distrust of the goverment and people begining to organize against that institution on a grass roots level, what do you think a draft will do?

      I can understand the need to take down those dicatorships, our fathers made mistakes and the sons will pay for their sins. Those dictatorships have grown to dislike the US, and their people hate the US and their dictators. That doesn't mean another generation must die and be wounded on the battlefield to institute another set of dictators or to make foreign lands ours.

      I'd fight to free those people, as I consider it my duty as a christian. But not under Bush, not under Rumsfield. Not with the FBI and CIA in existance, not with blood of crimes like MKULTRA and the bombing of the Liberty by Israel on their hands. I don't trust those people. Not if I know my kids, if I ever reproduce, will fight again on the same soil for the same reason.

      Protesting right now is getting bad, the media won't cover it but it's everywhere. New york for christ sakes revoked the Patriot act. Civil disobedience from cities is a bad thing for our republic, it serves to tear it apart.

      Say bush is re-elected, and a draft is instituted. Do you think a civil war will happen? I certainly hope not, but that's what it may come to. Nobody I talked to trusts our goverment, nor feels like they can do anything about it. What happens if a group rises up to unite these people? Gets them to come out of the woodwork and do what's right. Even our right to vote is under attack, that may be lost this election.

      People aren't stupid in america. Most of america is in the middle class, and they've got stuff they don't want to lose, things they don't want to rebuild. They are patient, it's a staring contest. The first to blinks looses.

    82. Re:never too late... by Glytch · · Score: 1

      You give up huge portions of your taxes in the US anyway, without the benefit of decent health care.

    83. Re:never too late... by Glytch · · Score: 1

      You mean like when Canada started fighting against Germany in 1939? And it took the US two years to get off it's collective cowardly ass and help out? Real noble, there.

      Besides, this "time of crisis" is bullshit, just like Vietnam. Your borders are safe, and terrorism is a domestic job for police, not a foreign job for a military. This "time of crisis" is all about a few rich Americans looking out for number one.

      Running away is not cowardice. The draft is slavery. A bunch of old bitter men trying to stay rich by sacrificing my friends' lives is a load of bullshit. I applaud the courage of some young man who is forced to drop everything and leave everyone he knows in order to deprive the military of one more human shield. You think it's easy to just up and leave? You're a callous piece of crap if you think that simple cowardice can make one leave one's family, friends, and career.

      Fucking jingoistic twit. Grow up. WW2 was entirely different. There was a clear menace in Europe. No such thing exists now. The only menace is to some oil barons' pocketbooks. That's what this bullshit war is about.

    84. Re:never too late... by Sanction · · Score: 1

      While you are right about the public pressure a draft would bring, I am wondering what country you are thinking of where a politican's kids would be subject to the draft. Looking at all the children of the politicians and the rich, I don't see a lot of them going to combat positions if they didn't want to, and for most the most severe possibility was a cushy stateside guard position.

      I would try to exercise my voice in government to oppose some of these little national adventures, but I'm afraid that I don't have enough disposable income to make my voice count.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    85. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Choosing freedom by going to Canada IS taking a stand on what you believe in. How does choosing a different form of slavery or going to jail support the idea of freedom?

      I find it all to convenient that the majority of people who fled to Canada came back once the war was over. To me that still reeks of cowardice and self-serving interest.

      If you really want to take a stand and run away then maybe you should get Canadian (or Mexican, or whatever) citizenship and renounce your US Passport. What? Don't want to give up the benefits of being an American citizen? Then perhaps you should stay and fight for our ideals and freedoms.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    86. Re:never too late... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      You mean like when Canada started fighting against Germany in 1939? And it took the US two years to get off it's collective cowardly ass and help out? Real noble, there.

      Real noble eh? How about Lend Lease? How about the fact that despite the fact that 85% of the American public was opposed to getting in the war FDR took us into an undeclared war against the Germans on the high seas (read about the Naval actions in 1940 and 1941 and the loss of the USS Ruben James) to save your sorry collective caught-unawares asses? By moving all of our forces to the East Coast we emboldened the Japanese to have the guts to attack Pearl Harbor -- the first time since the war of 1812 that American soil was directly attacked by another state. If you think we did nothing but sit on our "collective cowardly asses" for the two years between 39 and 41 then you don't know history very well.

      You wanna talk about "collective cowardly asses"? Why don't you research the sitzkrieg for a little bit and then talk about "collective cowardly asses". The Brits and the French sat behind their Magiot line while a mere 10-15% of the German army faced them and let the Germans rape Poland (whom they swore to protect and went to war over). Then after the Germans were done with the Poles they (the Allies) continued to sit on their fat collective cowardly asses and let the Germans take Norway without so much as a fight.

      Don't talk to me about "collectively cowardly asses" without reading your own history books first. Or do history books in the Commonwealth gloss over the Sitzkrieg?

      Your borders are safe, and terrorism is a domestic job for police, not a foreign job for a military.

      Really? So my local village cops can go into Afghanistan and arrest Mr. Bin Ladin? I'd agree that the prevention and response to terrorism is a police responsibility. But after 3,000 of our citizens are murdered you can bet your ass we are going to send our troops to seek justice for our dead and capture/kill (preferably kill) those responsible.

      You think this is new to the so-called war on terrorism? Research the campaign in Mexico to capture Pancho Villa after his cowardly murderous attack on innocent American civilians in Columbus New Mexico. If you cross our borders for the purpose of murdering American civilians do you really expect us to sit on our hands and do nothing? If you intend to kill Americans then you damn well better be able to defeat the American military -- otherwise you will pay the price for your crimes.

      Running away is not cowardice. The draft is slavery.

      Really? Then paying taxes is slavery too? If you have a skill that can save lives (i.e: your a Doctor) you are required by law to use it -- a Doctor can't drive by an accident scene without stopping. Is that slavery? What you call slavery I call giving back to your community and country when it needs you the most.

      A bunch of old bitter men trying to stay rich by sacrificing my friends' lives is a load of bullshit.

      What if it's somebody elses bitter old men (i.e: Nazi Germany or OBL) trying to kill your friends? Whose going to stop them? If your referring to the current situation in Iraq and the current administration as "bitter old men" then I fail to see the logic -- seeing as how we don't currently have a draft or plans to reinstate one.

      I applaud the courage of some young man who is forced to drop everything and leave everyone he knows in order to deprive the military of one more human shield. You think it's easy to just up and leave? You're a callous piece of crap if you think that simple cowardice can make one leave one's family, friends, and career.

      I call it cowardice because it's running away. Take a stand and oppose it -- go to jail. Or *gasp* do the equivalent civilian service. If your nation is in peril and you don't defend it then you don't deserve to be a member of that community any

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    87. Re:never too late... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "I find it all to convenient that the majority of people who fled to Canada came back once the war was over. To me that still reeks of cowardice and self-serving interest."

      Self-interest is exactly what freedom is all about. You don't think all those people fled Europe and came to America to make a philosphical point do you?

      What I find convenient is that someone for whom this important decision is merely a theoretical one is so quick to pass judgment on those that had to face it in the real world.

  3. You're all safe by whoda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just say you don't know how to use Microsoft products.

    1. Re:You're all safe by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      And they will not choose you.

      Microsoft = everything.

      Without knowledge of anything (inside of everything), you are nothing.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    2. Re:You're all safe by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just say you don't know how to use Microsoft products.

      While this has been the case with large IT groups within large governmental organizations in the past, this is starting to change within certain groups like subsets of the Department of Homeland Security and groups within the FBI and CIA. A number of those folks are going to other platforms like OS X for security reasons, convenience, management and hardware infrastructure like Altivec which can speed up cryptography significantly. Of course some of the older guys know Nextstep quite well and were fans of the NeXT boxes when they were de-rigeur at the NSA and places in the CIA and are quite happy with OS X.

      Linux has also made big strides in places, particularly the TRUSTED flavors.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:You're all safe by arcanumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      OR that you have been reading Slashdot

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    4. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This should have been moderated Funny, not Insightful. Read this, then rethink what you just said.

      Red Hat Advanced Server Gets DoD COE Certification

    5. Re:You're all safe by beeblebrox87 · · Score: 1

      That being the point, I certainly don't want to be chosen for such a program. Most slashdotters probably prefer their current jobs, would hate to work for the government, and would hate working in an all windows environment.

      However:
      Microsoft != everything. Things like knowledge of TCP/IP, BIOSes, configuration of embedded devices, knowledge of computer hardware, etc are all relevant to a generic "computer personel" job. Microsoft, however, is a large subset of everything, such that without any (alleged) experience of it you are likely to be rejected by any organization ignorant enough to use it.

    6. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Altivec is just 128-bit SIMD. The same thing can be accomplished with SSE2, the code is just a whole hell of a lot uglier. I'd be surprised if anyone used anything but large clusters of P4s for encryption work though -- I can't imagine anything comes in close in price/performance if you're hand-optimizing the assembly (required for SSE2).

    7. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuz when Canada attacks... And they will!

    8. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I get the feeling it's not my country any more. There was a coup, and a right-wing fascist group seized control. Why the hell should I want to fight for them? If anything, fighting for MY country would be assassinating Bush, Rixe, Powell, and all their slimy corporate CEO buddies.

    9. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      S/Rixe/Rice/g

    10. Re:You're all safe by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Informative
      this is starting to change within certain groups

      You can add DoD and the Army to that list. Army is experimenting with embedded Linux in some battlefield com and data systems, which are pretty cool, btw.

      OS X is picking up in popularity with the intelligence and security types, as you mentioned, but also in some of the research fields like high energy physics

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    11. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can't imagine anything comes in close in price/performance if you're hand-optimizing the assembly (required for SSE2).

      Only the third fastest supercomputer in the world at Virginia Tech. Hint: It's a cluster made up on off the shelf G5's from Apple.

    12. Re:You're all safe by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I've seen linux being advocated for and used extensively within the Air Force as much as 5 years ago. So you're absolutely right, and the parent is absolutely ludicrous.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    13. Re:You're all safe by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      A number of those folks are going to other platforms like OS X for security reasons, convenience, management and hardware infrastructure like Altivec which can speed up cryptography significantly. Of course some of the older guys know Nextstep quite well and were fans of the NeXT boxes when they were de-rigeur at the NSA and places in the CIA and are quite happy with OS X.

      Unfortunately, I don't have the guy who'd know handy at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that a P4 can do RSA faster than a PowerPC, Altivec be damned. Dunno about other algorithms.

    14. Re:You're all safe by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 1

      true, M$ != everything. Just ask a tank mechanic.

      Not all the specialist jobs are in computers. Anyone who has ever TOUCHED an Oshkosh truck is probably up, as Oshkosh makes most of the support vehicles now being used.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    15. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I'm pretty sure that a P4 can do RSA faster than a PowerPC, Altivec be damned. Dunno about other algorithms.

      You obviously have not used a G5. The system sitting on my desk right now absolutely spanks any other system I have used for cryptography short of a cluster. This includes P3s, P4s, SGI MIPS systems and AMD. And the speeds are unbelieveable when optimized for Altivec. In that case, there is currently nothing faster than a G5, short of a cluster (for certain problems) or dedicated crypto hardware.

    16. Re:You're all safe by k_head · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. You may end up in guantanamo bay.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    17. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, crap. Anyone want a Powermac G5, cheap?

    18. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, you can get a 2.8 GHz P4 in a beige box for about $300. I suppose 1.6 GHz G5 for $1800 might be faster, but there's no way it's six times faster.

    19. Re:You're all safe by danila · · Score: 1

      That's a first post I saw on Slashdot advocating assassination of the Bush and his cronies that was moderated up to 5. Let me predict that if Bush is reelected, we will see more of that (Slashdot will then be censored by the state, of course). Eventually, someone will have to actually do it...

      Don't vote for Bush, guys... We have our elections today, but nobody other than the current president even stands a chance. :( Sucks...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    20. Re:You're all safe by jasondlee · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a statement like this (advocating the death of a sitting president) bordering on illegal? AC posted it, but I'm sure there are access logs somewhere...

      jason

      --
      jason
      Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
    21. Re:You're all safe by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      Yes, the AC poster is most likely in for a meeting with the black suits, and rightly so. In the USA we vote someone out of power, we don't put a bullet in them.
      BTW, they will get the logs from OSDN, they will show up where you work, they will give you an interview on why you are plotting an assasination, and I don't think they will be in the wrong.

    22. Re:You're all safe by jmccay · · Score: 1

      How the heck is this insightful!!!!! What a stupid bunch of moderators. This person is clueless. If anything, the country has turned liberal. The liberals own the media--except for Fox. The liberals prevent any judges being elected who they think won't _write_ laws that enforce their warped view of the world.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    23. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try giving an unbiased definition of what it means to be "liberal" and what it means to be "conservative".

      Once you've defined the terms, feel free to argue from there. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

    24. Re:You're all safe by dynamo · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right.

    25. Re:You're all safe by smagruder · · Score: 1

      There was a time, say a year ago, when I would have said "Shame on you!". With the Reckless Resident currently in power, I can no longer see the need to do that. And I feel sad.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    26. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't gain much by knocking off those idiots. There are thousands of equivalent replacements available. The country is not short of ivy-educated political scions and chicken hawks.

      The only way I think we can ever see real change in our government is to once-and-for-all break the two-party system.

    27. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives suck :P

    28. Re:You're all safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? Let's see what the FBI mods it.

  4. Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by DarkFencer · · Score: 5, Funny

    'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists

    Better go out and start writing my e-mail with Outlook Express! That will immediately prove I am not a computer specialist

  5. sure, why not? by dogas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they pay more than the paltry salary I'm making now, then draft me up!

    --
    'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
    1. Re:sure, why not? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would they need a draft if that was the case? It's not like military recruiters are hard to find...

    2. Re:sure, why not? by MetalMorph · · Score: 2, Informative

      Enlist in the Air Force. Technical proficiency is practically a requirement.

      --
      My words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
    3. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The whole reason to have a draft is so you can pay far below market rates.

      Conscription is logically equivalent to slavery. Consider yourself lucky if you get minimum wage, most of the plans to draft unskilled troops won't even give them that much.

    4. Re:sure, why not? by crackshoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      things to add to below market rates: insane perks.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    5. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Its just a lot easier to add "put you in prison if you won't work for us" to below market rates.

      I mean, if you're already morally bankrupt.

    6. Re:sure, why not? by demi · · Score: 4, Informative
      The whole reason to have a draft is so you can pay far below market rates.

      Yes, below market, but it depends on your definition of "far." They won't be paying you any less than those of equivalent rank--for a university graduate level specialty it's going to mean at least a warrant officer's billet--looking at the military pay scale (at least for 2002) that's around $25k/yr, a lot more than minimum wage. A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.

      Conscription is logically equivalent to slavery.

      You mean because you can't opt out of it? I don't think this is equivalent to slavery. As citizens, there are several obligations we have to the government, some of them onerous: like taxes. This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.

      --
      demi
    7. Re:sure, why not? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      If you have a college degree, you can enter as an E-1. You also left out the fact that they will provie shelter and food so they get to pocket most of that 13,272.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    8. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery

      No, since you have a reasonably good chance of dying in battle (this is a draft we're talking about, which most likely only happens in wartime), it's far from "humane", and worse than any form of slavery where they don't shoot at you.

    9. Re:sure, why not? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.

      IIRC, that also doesn't reflect the on-base accomodations, which are (IIRC) not billed seperately, but rather taken as a "benefit" to justify a lower cost.

    10. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're that gung-ho, feel free to enlist anytime.

    11. Re:sure, why not? by �berhund · · Score: 1
      I'll sign up for computer stuff so I don't get drafted/shot at!
      Fished in! Tanks have computers, too!
      --
      -Uberhund
    12. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's not higher than E-1? I'd heard a college degree will get you the rank of Specialist in the Army, which would be E-4, right? Maybe PFC at E-3?

    13. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slavery is forced labor.

      Conscription is forced labor.

      Yeah, that's a real stretch of a comparison.

    14. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      You'd be right if we were talking about people who signed up. These are conscripts, their education has no bearing on that, because the same rules don't apply to them.

    15. Re:sure, why not? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slavery doesn't pay several times minimum wage, provide full benefits, offer social esteem, or provide a trained career path. You may not enjoy every moment of it, but military service is a far cry from slavery.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:sure, why not? by demi · · Score: 1

      Administering antibiotics is killing organisms, and genocide is killing organisms--so following your simpleminded logic I guess doctors are the same as Hitler, right?

      --
      demi
    17. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Save the self righteousness for someone who will be impressed by it.

      If these people didn't already have a "trained career path" they wouldn't be subject to this draft, and if the pay and benefits were really so great they could fill the position without putting a gun to anybody's head.

      This is forced labor... no matter how sugar-coated it is, that's slavery.

    18. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      From the organisms' perspective they are.

    19. Re:sure, why not? by CycoChuck · · Score: 1

      I'll take the draft. I spent years and thousands of dollars for a degree only to end up working at a fast food joint and fixing people's pcs on the side. Though, it doesn't help when I live in the middle of nowhere with no money to move where the tech jobs are.

      --
      Windows is as solid as quicksand.
    20. Re:sure, why not? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      The whole reason to have a draft is so you can pay far below market rates.

      Which isn't much different from what enlisted troops receive when they first sign up anyway. Of course, the fact that they live in dorms, eat at dining halls, and have free medical care means that most, if not all their income is discretionary.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    21. Re:sure, why not? by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Try E-4 for the Army at least. Thats the norm for a college person who enlists.

    22. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Of course the enlisted troops actually want to be there.

      The income isn't too discretionary if one can't, for example, decide they're made enough money and don't want to work there anymore.

      What exactly does someone who lives in a dorm and eats what he's given spend this money on, anyhow? Personally I'm guessing it would be various drugs to ease the pain of knowing one is being forced to work against one's will.

    23. Re:sure, why not? by TheGrayArea · · Score: 1

      The reason for a draft is that your country needs you.
      "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
      John Stuart Mill (1806-1873

      --

      This space for rent.
    24. Re:sure, why not? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it was a typo, it should've been E-4 as in Specialist.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    25. Re:sure, why not? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The whole reason to have a draft is so you can pay far below market rates.

      Bring on the H1B's! Lets just offshore our draft - join the american foreign legion!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    26. Re:sure, why not? by KEVINWASH1 · · Score: 1

      Rivaling the power of being slashdotted...being draftshotted!

    27. Re:sure, why not? by gaijin99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You mean because you can't opt out of it? I don't think this is equivalent to slavery. As citizens, there are several obligations we have to the government, some of them onerous: like taxes. This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.
      Disagree. Taxes are non-fatal. The draft requires that a person who disagrees with the policy of his government risk his life for the policies he disagrees with. This is similar to a measure requiring that you vote for a particular party.

      Voluntary military service can be thought of as the ultimate form of democracy: can't get enough people to volunteer to fight your war? Too bad, guess you can't fight it then. I can't see how forcing me to kill for a cause I disagree with is anything but slavery.

      Taxes are a different deal, mainly in that they don't force me to kill, or force me to risk my life. I may disagree with how my tax dollars are spent, but as a civilian I still have all my rights and can aggitate for change. A soldier can, quite legally, be punished for disagreeing with government policy (this is why you no longer see non-anonymous interviews with soldiers who disagree with the Bush Government's policy. The first few who did so non-anonymously suffered retribution). A civilian can protest, write nasty letters, run for office against the politician who is spending his money, etc. A soldier can do none of those things. The draft is not equivilant to paying taxes.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    28. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "The reason for a draft is that your country needs you."

      Needs you but doesn't have a good enough reason that you'd volunteer would be more accurate.

      However much name calling you or John Mills wants to do, I'm not going to kill anybody. Put me in prison if it makes you feel better. Just remind yourself that you're doing it to "keep me free".

    29. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jury duty is forced labor. paying taxes is forced labor. both are obligations of being a citizen in this country. And conscription applies as well. Get off your high horse and get over it.

    30. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "jury duty is forced labor. paying taxes is forced labor."

      I agree... those are immoral as well.

    31. Re:sure, why not? by LihTox · · Score: 1
      Conscription is logically equivalent to slavery.
      You mean because you can't opt out of it? I don't think this is equivalent to slavery. As citizens, there are several obligations we have to the government, some of them onerous: like taxes. This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.
      Taxes are nowhere near as onerous as the military controlling every aspect of your life for several years. True, "slavery" might not be quite the word since it implies ownership, but the 13th Amendment's "involuntary servitude" certainly seems to apply:

      servitude: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life (www.m-w.com)

      Me, I'm with Charles Shenck: conscription is involuntary servitude and as such violates the 13th Amendment (despite what the courts think. :))

    32. Re:sure, why not? by Gropo · · Score: 1

      I'm halfway on the same page with you here... The other side of the argumant, the one my rational lobe leans towards is to view it as an extreme form of taxation. It's a duty that you're bound to uphold 'as a citizen who reaps the benefits of a free society' yadda yadda...

      Hmm some hippie liberal I turned out to be :P

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    33. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that it's very similar to an extreme form of taxation... you're on the right track.

      Ask then, just how much of a "free society" it is when people are forced to work for it against their will.

      Then ask how much of a "free society" it is if people are forced to pay for it against their will.

      The key here is not that taxation justifies conscription, its that conscriptions provides an extreme example of just how wrong taxation was/is in the first place.

    34. Re:sure, why not? by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

      Sure, if false analogies can be counted as "simpleminded" logic, I guess so.

      You, ma'am, are the one who lacks logic.

    35. Re:sure, why not? by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      One other thought here. The draft would be much less objectionable if the immediate family of all politicians were automatically drafted into a special infantry unit which is always put where the fighting is the thickest. If the draft is good enough for us, it bloody well ought to be good enough for the children, siblings, spouses and cousins of the people deciding to go to war. I'd also like to see that "special draft" include the family of major weapons manufacturers. Perhaps then they'd be a bit less eager to fight pointless wars.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    36. Re:sure, why not? by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Armies staffed by forgieners are never a good idea. It marked the begining of the end for the Roman Empire. If you want your country defended, you should do it yourself.

    37. Re:sure, why not? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Do you then advocate the abolishment of all taxation? Paying taxes isn't much fun, but I wouldn't want to be without the services they pay for..

    38. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US actually did this during the civil war. Both Union and Confederate draftees were able to hire substitutes to fulfil their duty, many of which ended up being new immigrants which had not yet filed for citizenship.

      Battle Cry of Freedom, page 601

    39. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like we've got an anarchist over here. You clearly haven't thought through this view...

    40. Re:sure, why not? by Eil · · Score: 1


      Does the military really pay poorly? Well, that's a big fat "depends". (No, not a diaper. Keep reading.)

      I joined the Air Force a few years ago and was stationed to my first base after 8 months of tech school. The AF paid for meals, housing, medical, dental, you name it. I wasn't making a huge sum of money, but since all of the basics were covered by the government, everthing that I *did* make went straight into my wallet. In the first 6 months alone I bought myself a TV, VCR and Stereo (all fairly high-end) as well as a Playstation plus several games and built a $4000 computer. I've always heard rumors that other services had it even better when it came to pay. (But of course their quality of life sucks.)

      Perhaps one downside is that even if you make good money going in, staying in for too long can cost you in the long run. Your pay goes up, of course, with your rank and time in service, but it sometimes doesn't go very high and it also does not scale with your job. A Tech Sergeant who's been serving eggs for 17 years makes the same as one who's been calibrating, testing, and repairing specialized precision analog circuits for the same length of time. The latter job might command a six-figure income in the civilain job sector, but no enlisted rank approaches that.

    41. Re:sure, why not? by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Then ask how much of a "free society" it is if people are forced to pay for it against their will.

      There is a small difference. You pay income tax as a fraction of money you make. You aren't forced to pay taxes - just don't have any income. You are forced to serve in a draft (if we had one).

      That being said, I do think a draft would be a good thing for two reasons: 1) people do benefit from the existence of organized society, and so it should be a duty to help protect said society. 2) If the sons and daughters of everyone were in harms way maybe we'd be less prone to imperial adventures.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    42. Re:sure, why not? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if John Stuart were executed by the government. Why? It doesn't matter why. If the government says get down on your knees kiss its ass, you do it, because your country needs you to go oversees in needless wars and kill people. Without obeying the government and killing people, you go into John Stuart's deluded little 'decayed and degraded' state. So let's do as you're told, and go out and kill someone. It's the American way.

      The reason for kissing the government's ass is because your country needs you.

      Anyway I'm gonna go and argue with someone who doesn't rely on a fellow retard's blabbering.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    43. Re:sure, why not? by holizz · · Score: 1

      This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.

      Death and PTSD are humane?

    44. Re:sure, why not? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Save the self righteousness for someone who will be impressed by it.

      Pot... kettle... black...

      I'm not in favor of a draft and have never implied as much. However, I do think its ludicrous, insulting, and demeaning to compare conscripted service to one's own country to forced slavery.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    45. Re:sure, why not? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Weapons manufacturers? These are the people who try to reduce our fatalities. Politicians, in initiating unnecessary wars, increase fatalities. The difference is crucial.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    46. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they pay more than the paltry salary I'm making now, then draft me up!

      This is funny but true... Bush has been rapidly building up the Reserve Army of the Unemployed, so when Uncle Sam holds out a paycheck there are lots of folks who will grab it.

    47. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      " Looks like we've got an anarchist over here."

      You are correct.

      "You clearly haven't thought through this view..."

      What drew you to that conclusion?

    48. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      " Do you then advocate the abolishment of all taxation? "

      Yes

      "Paying taxes isn't much fun, but I wouldn't want to be without the services they pay for.."

      So? If these services are so generally desired people will be willing to contribute to them without being forced.

    49. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "There is a small difference. You pay income tax as a fraction of money you make. You aren't forced to pay taxes - just don't have any income. You are forced to serve in a draft (if we had one)."

      That's true, the income tax is slightly better than a draft in that regard.

      "That being said, I do think a draft would be a good thing for two reasons: 1) people do benefit from the existence of organized society, and so it should be a duty to help protect said society."

      What about those of us who neither benefit from nor desire it? Why force us to work for what you want?

      "2) If the sons and daughters of everyone were in harms way maybe we'd be less prone to imperial adventures."

      That's a bit like strapping dynamite to everyone to make us all care about terrorism, isn't it?

    50. Re:sure, why not? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      So basically it'll be the same as now, only services will cost more due to not having the efficiencies of scale the government can provide, and those who don't have money will be excluded from them?

    51. Re:sure, why not? by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

      "If you want your country defended, do it yourself"

      This is good for a counrty, but not an empire. When Marius allowed non landholding citizens to become Roman Soldiers, he created an army dependent on him. The subsequent rise of personal armies spelled the demise of the Roman Republic. At the time of Marius, auxilliary units of non Romans were used. As citizenship was extended throughout the Empire, almost everyone qualified for military service. Most "barbarian" tribes on the outskirts of the empire were allowed status as "Socii", Fratri" etc. and were also eligible for military service in the armies of the empire.

      Inclusiveness/co-option was the successful strategy of both the early Roman Republic when they made citizens of their neighbors after conquering them and of the empire.

      This may be the model for Microsofts business methods.

    52. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Efficiencies of Government? Isn't that an oxymoron?

      Government is notoriously inefficient at providing services, and usually makes up for it by outlawing private competition and forcing those who don't use the service to pay for it.

      Just because a service is provided privately also does not mean those without money will be excluded from it. Likewise, the poor are denied multiple services which the government offers if they can't pay for them.

    53. Re:sure, why not? by hacktothefuture · · Score: 0

      Ok! Great idea.

      We'll abolish taxes, the military and we'll all live happily ever after, having nothing forced upon us.

      Dolts! This is the greatest country in the world hands down. That's why more people want to move here than any other place in the world. Why is this country great? Well sure, freedom is the number one reason. A close second is infrastructure. Do you know how nice it is to have indoor plumbing, paved roads to drive on, being able to drive at night without getting car jacked (for most of the country), electricity on 24 hours a day. I know what it's like to live in a country without those things. You think our governement officials are corrupt? You have no idea. A senator in my home country just demolished a $4 million mansion to rebuild a brand new more luxurious one in its place, while half the country starves.

      Freedom and infrastructure!

      To keep them require two things: a military and taxes.

      I hate having to pay taxes but I know we need them. I don't want to die at the hand or bullet of a foriegn enemy serving in the military, but I know we need it also. If we needed to reinstate conscription in order to maintain the military (which is absurd BTW) then that's what we need to do.

      Americans take their security, freedom and everyday conveniences for granted and it's freaking ridiculous. For the most part the loudest complainers would shrivel and die in a corner if the very complaints they were making were ever listened to and heeded.

    54. Re:sure, why not? by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      To an extent, you are correct. However never forget that in the absence of a war the weapons manufacturers make less money. Thus they will be lobbying (that is, bribing) politicians to start unnecessary wars. The weapons makers make a bundle of money in wartime so its in their best interests to ensure that there's a war every few years. Notice that the recent war in Iraq, for example, has cost several billion dollars that would not have been spent were it not for the fact that we needed to resupply various expendible munitions that were used in the course of the war.

      Depending on the model a single cruise missile costs between $500,000 and $1,900,000. Obviously a percentage of that price tag is profit to the company making the crusie missile. During peacetime the military will use some expendible munitions in live fire exercises (necessary to keep the personnel trained), this provides a trickle of income to the manufacturer. In a war we may use hundreds of cruise missiles per day (during the opening phases at least). Thus the trickle becomes a flood. Tell me that the munitions companies don't have a vested interest in having a war every few years.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    55. Re:sure, why not? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      2) If the sons and daughters of everyone were in harms way maybe we'd be less prone to imperial adventures.

      And we all know that the sons and daughters of the rich have an equally high likelyhood of being in a combat zone. Like George Bush during the Vietnam War for instance, or a number of the other armchair hawks currently in his administration.

      Nope, what it means is that the smart and/or educated people are deciding that maybe the military isn't such a good idea when you have a Republican government that is willing to see you die for the benefit of USA corporations. The modern US army needs smart, educated people, so they'll draft to pay them less than half the market price for their skills, while U.S. corporations replace them with third-world equivalents under similar indentured HB-1 status.

      Well, at least you guys aren't making exactly the same mistake as the Roman Empire; they hired foreign mercenaried to fight for them as well as using foreign slave labour. Oh well, there's still time to repeat the pattern, it took the Romans a few hundred years to fall after all. No point in rushing to do it in a single decade.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    56. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Forcing someone to work for someone else is slavery. That's the fucking definition.

      So please, spare us the mock indignation.

    57. Re:sure, why not? by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Exweeze me...but the draft does not require "that a person who disagrees with the policy of his government risk his life for the policies he disagrees with". To the contrary, a draft would give you an unambiguous way of saying "no" to that policy by refusing to submit to it. You cannot be made a member of the military against your will. Yes, you may be tried by a civilian court for your refusal, but that's what civil disobedience is all about. You can "opt out" of the draft. It was this kind of resistance that was a big factor in ending the Vietnam War. Of course, it takes some guts.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    58. Re:sure, why not? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Weapons manufacturers? These are the people who try to reduce our fatalities. Politicians, in initiating unnecessary wars, increase fatalities. The difference is crucial.

      While weapons manufacturers have incentive to make their weapons effective, they also have good reason to see wars get started. Wars consume weapons and ammunition and require for one-shot weapons to be replaced. War means good business for weapons manufacturers, whether their weapons protect their wielders or not. And in the end, you're more likely to have people die during war than during peace, no matter how good your weapons are.

      During the bidding process for the 2010 Olympics, all the construction companies in Vancouver were advertising with huge banners and lights on cranes in support of the bid during the city-wide referendum. Why? With over half a billion in anticipated government largess for building Olympic facilities, those companies saw a good chance to garner a portion of that payday. Too bad the rest of the province (who will also have to pay for that construction) didn't get the same chance to weigh in on the decision.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    59. Re:sure, why not? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      True enough...the government isn't exactly known for efficiency. (And it should be, because they don't have the burden of needing to make a profit, so they ought to be able to provide services for less than private corporations)

      Once I start working out the idea of no taxes, though, I run into trouble pretty quickly. I can think of a lot of examples, but the following is the big one; maybe you have an answer?

      Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.

      Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them? Do you force people to serve? Or do they only protect those willing to pay? Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.

      Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.

      And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again :-)

      No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money :-)

    60. Re:sure, why not? by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1
      Dolts! This is the greatest country in the world hands down. That's why more people want to move here than any other place in the world. Why is this country great? Well sure, freedom is the number one reason. A close second is infrastructure. Do you know how nice it is to have indoor plumbing, paved roads to drive on, being able to drive at night without getting car jacked (for most of the country), electricity on 24 hours a day. I know what it's like to live in a country without those things. You think our governement officials are corrupt? You have no idea. A senator in my home country just demolished a $4 million mansion to rebuild a brand new more luxurious one in its place, while half the country starves.

      Freedom and infrastructure!

      To keep them require two things: a military and taxes.

      I agree with the need for infrastructure. I also agree that a military is necessary. But the US spends a much higher percentage of our (very large) GDP on the military than just about anyone else. The reason for this has little to do with self-defense, and much to do with enforcing the will of the US ruling class on people in remote parts of the world. I will fight to defend my country. I will not fight to further enrich Exxon or Halliburton. I also recognize a moral obligation to resist being transformed into a slave who is press-ganged to carry out the murderous orders of those whom, in a more just society, would be incarcerated. Leaving out all the patriotic lies that they use to sugar-coat it, conscription is nothing but involuntary servitude, and is incompatible with a free society. I'm old enough to have been eligible for the last draft, and a lot of the idiots posting here obviously have no idea what it's like to have the government coerce you to go to a far-away country to commit crimes against humanity on their behalf, or why that might bother some of us. Those who are oblivious to this are the real dolts.

      --
      Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
    61. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Needing to make a profit is quite an incentive to not be inefficient, actually.

      Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.

      That was actually one of the positives, from my perspective.

      Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them?

      Whoever wanted them in the first place

      Do you force people to serve?

      No

      Or do they only protect those willing to pay?

      That's up to them.

      Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.

      Again, that's what I was shooting for.

      Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.

      Not neccesarily a forgone conclusion. There are plenty of examples of anarchies that have lasted for several generations. Likewise, many governments don't last more than a week or two.

      And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again :-)

      Or someone doesn't and we don't. Either way, we're spared taxation for awhile.

      No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money :-)

      Actually if you're looking for more fully flushed out theories on how all of this will work the site Anti-State.com is an excellent resource.

    62. Re:sure, why not? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Needing to make a profit is quite an incentive to not be inefficient, actually.

      Ok, bad choice of words...I mean, all things being equal, the nonprofit ought to be able to have lower prices because it only needs to break even.

      Of course, in practice..

      There are plenty of examples of anarchies that have lasted for several generations.

      I'd just as soon not live in an anarchy for any length of time, thanks. ;-) I'll take a look at the website, though.

    63. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of a "free society" would it be if none of us were ever willing to put in the required effort to support it? If we had no taxes and no draft sure we'd be free, but we'd be a far cry from a society.

    64. Re:sure, why not? by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.

      Income Tax is a relatively recent invention, instituted in 1913 by the 16th amendment. it was originally supposed to support itself by regulating trade, tariffs, licensing fees, etc. There is some discrepancies in the way the 16th amendment was added, but the supreme court let it stand, so we are stuck with it.

      Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them? Do you force people to serve? Or do they only protect those willing to pay? Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.

      according to U.S. code, every male U.S. Citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are already part of the unorganized militia of the U.S.. It was set up that way because there was not supposed to be a standing army, just militias, unless there was an actual war. States were supposed to maintain things you couldn't expect a lone person to be able to afford such has artillery, but it pretty much was your expected duty to maintain and pay for your own personal firearm. pretty much the entire country had militia call up 1-2 days a month to make sure people knew where to meet and who was who until the 1903 Militia act was passed, which formed the National Guard structure.

      I can provide, easily, references that were authored during the whole history of the country. However, most of the aforementioned is considered politically incorrect, so I'm sure others can quote recently written works to prove me wrong.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    65. Re:sure, why not? by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

      And! Slavery doesn't offer a free burial with honors!

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    66. Re:sure, why not? by dmarx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Slavery doesn't pay several times minimum wage, provide full benefits, offer social esteem, or provide a trained career path. You may not enjoy every moment of it, but military service is a far cry from slavery.

      If the military service is not voluntary, it is pretty clearly "involuntary servitude", and as such a violation of the 13th Ammendment.

      --
      "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
    67. Re:sure, why not? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      Your argument about "free society" leaves out a few things, though. True, we do not live in "free society". Without the taxes you pay, there would be no funding for infrastructure that keeps our society rolling.

      Sure, we could take a "pay-as-you-go" approach (Republicans), but then certain important functions such as the military, or firefighting, would only be paid by those individuals able or willing to afford them. Both of those functions are necessary on a wider basis because a war or a fire doesn't just affect one discrete paying individual (Pearl Harbor, California fires).

      Then you have the problem of everyone paying what they can afford. The major problem there is that there's always some fatass who's willing to let everyone else keep his ass in potato chips and couch cushions.

      A mandatory levy on properties, or other items is the only way to ensure that everyone pays to a certain extent. Personally, I think they ought to tax the crap out Intellectual Properties.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    68. Re:sure, why not? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Income Tax is a relatively recent invention, instituted in 1913 by the 16th amendment. it was originally supposed to support itself by regulating trade, tariffs, licensing fees, etc. There is some discrepancies in the way the 16th amendment was added, but the supreme court let it stand, so we are stuck with it.

      I would argue those to be a form of taxation. Certainly, you could find other sources of funding than income tax.

      I can provide, easily, references that were authored during the whole history of the country.

      Please do. While I won't get to them for a while (I'm swamped in work at the moment, even though I'm wasting my day off posting to Slashdot ;-)) I'm hoping to read some history this summer.

    69. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put me in prison if it makes you feel better.

      You'll go to prison because you violated the law, not because it makes anybody feel better.

      Just remind yourself that you're doing it to "keep me free".

      No. We'll be doing it because you broke the law. It's perfectly acceptable for people to have different agendas/beliefs, and part of the measure of a man is how he'll stand up for his beliefs when something he values is on the line. You seem intent on spinning this thread such that it's your beliefs that everybody lives by and some phantom menace is bending everyone to their will. That's quite incorrect. This country (the USA) is a Republic. The laws here are set up so that instead of having to spend our lives defending our lives, we're able to enjoy our lives by exploiting the fruits of our own labor.

      As an admitted anarchist, you have an easy choice to make. You can either stand up for your beliefs when it's your turn, leave and not be affected by the laws you hate, or STFU and stop acting like the rest of the world forced you to be a social leper.

    70. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social esteem!? Every member has been through an ordeal intended to produce (with varying degrees of success) automata that carry out their hierarchy's orders without question, then used only to suppress democratic governments the world over (because they've offended an administration's private interests somehow). A militia of free people defending their home would be worthy of respect, but it's been fifty years since the US military has been anything like that.

    71. Re:sure, why not? by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, man - $25,000/yr is about what my wife and I pay the fucking nanny who watches our son while we're away at work. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of $12/hr. I may not starve, but wife would have to sell the house, the cars, and the furniture to keep herself and my son from starving if that's what I was bringing home.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    72. Re:sure, why not? by TheGrayArea · · Score: 1

      1- Being in the military doesn't mean you by default have to 'kill'. If they call, volunteer for medic duty.
      2- With that second statement you dishonour the memories of all those who went when called by the draft during World World II (amoung others), serving and dying for this country.
      3- Because of those people you have the rights to say and do as you choose. Never forget that.

      --

      This space for rent.
    73. Re:sure, why not? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      No, slavery is working for free because you are physically threatened with whippings, etc.

      Conscription isn't as bad as that. You do get paid, and if you don't accede, you get thrown in jail, not whipped and hung.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    74. Re:sure, why not? by demi · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not saying I think a draft is a good idea, I was only pointing out that I don't think it's the same thing as slavery; as evidenced by comparing the experience of real slaves in this world with those engaged in temporary military service. And I also didn't say the draft was equivalent to paying taxes--in my post I said it was more onerous, didn't I? So you aren't really adding anything by reinforcing the point.

      --
      demi
    75. Re:sure, why not? by demi · · Score: 1

      I posited a ludicrous false analogy to point out the absurity of the original poster's false analogy--did you not understand that?

      --
      demi
    76. Re:sure, why not? by artdodge · · Score: 1
      Taxes are a different deal, mainly in that they don't force me to kill

      Those living in jurisdictions in which taxes pay for executions of criminals or where the government subsidizes abortions may take issue with that statement.

      Granted, by paying my taxes I'm not pulling the trigger. But I am putting the bullets in the gun.

      Just a thought.

    77. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "Jail is better than being hung" is very much a matter of opinion, especially considering the sort of treatment political prisoners of this sort generally receive.

    78. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      1. Being in the military is being involved in killing, directly or indirectly. Bandaging up people so they can go out and kill more people is being an accessory to murder.

      2. Appeal to emotion.

      3. Except I don't have a right to do as I choose. The fact that they are conscripting me to work against my will underscores that point.

    79. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?

      Is a society that is, by your own admission, unfree really worth saving?

      Also, why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans? It seems like they're the ones behind the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent murdering civilians around the world.

    80. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Ok, bad choice of words...I mean, all things being equal, the nonprofit ought to be able to have lower prices because it only needs to break even.

      Actually that's very true of private charities.

      The thing is private charities still have to convince people to give them money, so they still have something similar to the profit motive keeping them from wasting money.

      Not everything in an anarchy has to be "for profit", it just has to be funded voluntarily.

    81. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so hope you are drafted and they drag you to the front line in chains. Maybe you'll make a tasty snack for some killer war dogs, pinko.

    82. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      You sure like the idea of people dying, don't you?

    83. Re:sure, why not? by TheGrayArea · · Score: 1

      So, based on your comments what you're saying is that you would not participate in the defense of your country for any reason?

      --

      This space for rent.
    84. Re:sure, why not? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      According to the government:
      Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). The Court's analysis, in full, of the Thirteenth Amendment issue raised by a compulsory military draft was the following: ``As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.''

      Think as you like; the Supreme Court explicitly disagrees with you.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    85. Re:sure, why not? by jmccay · · Score: 1

      If you live in this country, then you have an obligation to defend it. You are enjoyign the protection of the United States. If you and all the other liberal left-wing cowards don't like it, move to another country. A lot of other countries REQUIRE military time at the time the teens leave high school.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    86. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This afternoon, I'm going out to a civilian rifle club to practice with my AR15 and my M1A. If we're invaded, I'll do my part.

      Fighting in foreign countries to remove supposed threats, which turn out not to exist in the first place, is another matter.

    87. Re:sure, why not? by PujaSnake · · Score: 1

      Then by the definitions listed above you are already a party to killing if you are living in our society. This country fought wars in which many people died in order to exist today. You're going to tell me that you have the right to avail yourself to the freedoms and the privileges of American society, and then look down your nose at those who have and are defending and protecting the "right to do as you choose"? Do you have any idea what has been done to provide you with the very freedom that you wave in our faces now as your right? I'm just an American citizen, and I do what I can to help defend, protect and preserve this country, they don't have to draft me, I'm already on board. You say that being involved in the military is being involved in killing, I say, being alive is being involved in killing. Any way you look at it, at some point something has to die for you to be alive and pecking out your hypocritical drivel right now. So let's do as you allude, disband our military. How long do you think it will be before some third world despot comes here and subjugates you?

    88. Re:sure, why not? by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, the US barely makes the top 10. As of 2002 we spent about 3% of our GDP on the military, according to the CIA worldbook.

    89. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      That would be an accurate statement.

    90. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Again, you're making the same mistake the last guy made. Its a common error, so its not surprising.

      Freedom is not provided by the American government. Indeed, if we look at the evidence it is more often assailed by governments than protected by it. Those who in the past "died for freedom" at best did a very incomplete job, for we are far from free.

      Likewise, just because a third world despot might attempt to subjugate me at some later date is no reason to submit to first world despots. Getting away from a system of being "ruled" by others should be our goal.

      I'm not convinced there is ever a good reason to kill.

    91. Re:sure, why not? by hacktothefuture · · Score: 0

      I see a small point here but what you're suggesting sets a very bad precedent. You suggest that soldiers only fight the military battles that they feel are justified and right. NONSENSE. We elect leaders to make that distinction and soldiers go fight the wars. If the decision to fight a battle is a bad one then we, as a people, are to blame because the people elect the Commander in Chief.

      You can't have every GI decide wether this battle is one I should be fighting or not. I certainly am not suggesting that soldiers disregard human rights and use the "I was just following orders" line to commit war crimes or anything like that, but within the confines of the law a soldier must follow orders. Our military must follow the orders of it's president. Without this structure in place you have chaos.

      You cannot spend 200 years creating a great country and hope that no one comes by and tries to attack it or destroy it. The role of the federal government is to ensure the safety of it's people. NOTHING ELSE. We have diluted the role of the fed so much so that people lose site of this. Now the federal government is feeding people, paying for art, getting involved in gay marriage disputes, etc. I could give a crap about any of these issues. I'm sure that many of the people on 9-11 couldn't have cared less about these issues in their moment of crisis. Protect me and my family, that's all I ask of the fed. Leave the rest of that crap to the state and local govt's. To that end, IF IT IS NECESSARY, conscript. I don't think in todays world it would ever be necessary but if it is I don't have a problem with it.

    92. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Expecting the government to obey its own laws is going to leave you disappointed most of the time.

    93. Re:sure, why not? by dynamo · · Score: 1

      If the militay were doing something positive for this country, I'd agree with you. But Bush (and many of his predecessors) has made it abundantly clear that the military is essentially the President's personal gang of thugs, to do his bidding with or without the agreement of the rest of the country or world. I believe we would have a much better chance of stopping terrorism if we started with the terrorism we euphemistically call 'being the world's policeman'. In their own minds, all terrorists are just standing up for their own personal beliefs. When you cross over into killing for your beliefs, when it is possible to avoid, you become the obstacle to peace.

    94. Re:sure, why not? by RayBender · · Score: 1
      people do benefit from the existence of organized society, and so it should be a duty to help protect said society."

      What about those of us who neither benefit from nor desire it? Why force us to work for what you want?

      I find it hard to believe you haven't benefitted from modern society. Have you ever taken advantage of modern medicine (even been vaccinated)? Do you live in a house? Do you use computers? Do you eat food grown by someone other than yourself? Do you carry a gun at all time to protect you and yours from roving groups of people bent on taking all you own? (ecpet the IRS of course :).

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    95. Re:sure, why not? by PujaSnake · · Score: 1

      I got ya, so the revolutionary war was unnecessary to separate us from the British. The declaration of Independence, the Constitution is just so much fluff, and no one needed to have died for this country to have been formed. What I'd really like to do is slap the crap out of you a couple of times to see if you really stand by your convictions, as I start to escalate the force applied, at some point one of us will be dead. I'm sure that I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I'm not going to resort to calling you names. But again, you're here and able to put forth your opinion because somewhere rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf. The way I see it, you've got a couple of choices: 1) Renounce your citizenship, go somewhere else -- New Zealand is supposed to be pretty cool. 2) Become a Misanthrope -- if you can find a cave to crawl into or a deserted island. Either way, that should give you the freedom you crave, but you'll always be running away. For me, I'd rather participate in society, and continue to believe in the protection that I'm afforded as a U.S. Citizen, have a voice and a chance to make things better through democratic means. If you've got real ideas to change things, let's hear 'em - but don't just tell me I'm mistaken, proclaim the U.S. Government is nothing but despots and insult my family and ancestry. Oh, and by the way, some of those that you insulted in saying that they did a very incomplete job are my family who fought and died for this country. My blood runs hot when someone like you avails yourself to at least this modicum of freedom we enjoy while insulting those who helped provide it. I dare say that there is a special plane in hell held in reserve.

    96. Re:sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I dare say that there is a special plane in hell held in reserve.

      Well, since there's no such place as Hell, what else have ya got? The bottom line is that if we're truly free, then we can say whatever we want at any time and in any place. So, Fuck You.

    97. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      " I got ya, so the revolutionary war was unnecessary to separate us from the British. "

      Yes

      "The declaration of Independence, the Constitution is just so much fluff, and no one needed to have died for this country to have been formed. "

      If they needed to the country wasn't worth forming in the first place.

      "What I'd really like to do is slap the crap out of you a couple of times to see if you really stand by your convictions, as I start to escalate the force applied, at some point one of us will be dead."

      You're an awful violent person to be claiming the moral high ground here.

      "My blood runs hot when someone like you avails yourself to at least this modicum of freedom we enjoy while insulting those who helped provide it. "

      Who asked you to provide me with anything? Damned sure wasn't me?

      Your brand of freedom, which can only be gained by killing some and enslaving others, I can do without.

    98. Re:sure, why not? by PujaSnake · · Score: 1

      "Who asked you to provide me with anything? Damned sure wasn't me?" But you got it anyway right, so if someone decided to take it away from you now, you'd scream bloody murder. Are you conflicted at all inside, to loathe something that you're a daily recipient of? "Your brand of freedom, which can only be gained by killing some and enslaving others, I can do without." But that is how the United States was instituted, by people roused to anger by unfair treatment, and those willing to die for what they believe in. Fine, do an Alec Baldwin and at least promise to leave. Again, renounce your citizenship. Do it here, you've come really really close with that last statement. Make it public, you sure don't want anything more to do with a nation that has a past as bloody as ours. Delta is ready when you are; we can even do a little pacifist aid benefit and get you a one way ticket. I pay taxes, I serve my country, and yes I can be roused to violence on its behalf. You are saying that you never get angry, are never upset when someone does something to you that you don't like? Then quite frankly, why am I arguing with you, you're nothing anyway. You won't do anything to me; you've admitted that, and no body's going to take you seriously. Have you considered the Swiss? They stay pretty much neutral and have the singular distinction, much like you, of having nothing of value or that anybody wants.

    99. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "You won't do anything to me; you've admitted that"

      You are indeed correct, I have no intention of doing you or anybody else any harm.

      You might want to ask yourself, in your daily introspection, exactly why someone not wanting to harm anyone angers you so, and indeed, would it anger you more or less if I wanted to do you specific harm?

      I have every intention of leaving someday, and rest assured that if I had half as much money as Alec Baldwin I'd have done so long ago.

    100. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if I was condemned to hell for taking "thou shalt not kill" at face value?

    101. Re:sure, why not? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?

      Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. You have to have some rules in order to even have what can be called a "society".

      why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans?

      Two reasons:

      1) They are the ones who propose doing away with most free governmental services and getting those who use them to pay service fees. Since such services can be handled more "efficiently" by the private sector, their eventual aim is to privatize all but a very few functions of the government. Democrats are ostensibly in favor of more services being provided by the government, or at least less privatization. Whether or not privatization is a "good thing" is not something I'm prepared to argue because there may be a case that it would help in some cases, but I don't have any concrete thoughts on that.

      2) There is one theory afloat that in order to do this more rapidly - they are willing to bankrupt the government. Now, I'm not some sad conspiracy theorist, but damn me if they're not doing a pretty effective job of it, right now. Which would force the issue of privatization and user-pays really damn quick.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    102. Re:sure, why not? by PujaSnake · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that I ever said I was angry at you. I said that my blood runs hot when someone avails themselves of the liberties and freedoms that others have fought and died for, people who believed in something strongly enough to give their lives for it, only to have you openly condemn the way that it was procured. If you tell me that you don't believe in fighting or killing, that's fine, I can respect that within certain limits, but when you tell me that I'm mistaken for believing that this country is worth fighting for, when you tell me that everyone who believes in defending this nation is wrong for wanting to do so, that's when I have a problem.

    103. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "but when you tell me that I'm mistaken for believing that this country is worth fighting for, when you tell me that everyone who believes in defending this nation is wrong for wanting to do so, that's when I have a problem."

      I don't believe I ever actually said that. Right and wrong is up to the individual to decide. I might think you're misguided for doing so, but I don't believe I have any unique insight into right and wrong.

    104. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. "

      Seems like that's what we have now. Its just the ones with the biggest weapons and fewest moral compunctions feign legitimacy.

    105. Re:sure, why not? by zifferent · · Score: 1

      "Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. "

      Seems like that's what we have now. Its just the ones with the biggest weapons and fewest moral compunctions feign legitimacy.


      That's only because International market anarchy created by free trade, and the natural world-wide anarchy of independent government/states allows this kind of thing to happen.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    106. Re:sure, why not? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Assuming that was true,its an unsolvable problem anyhow.

      Even if we had a one world government, which seems to be where you're headed, that government itself would be independant (failing some intergalactic government) and fall victim to the same kind of problems the modern ones do.

      If freedom really is "the problem", creating more hierarchies will not be much of a solution, since it just gives more power to a select few at the top of the hierarchy, and they still answer to no one.

  6. I thought by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought they were outsourcing these things :)

    Next up: Outsourcing missile control to China...

    1. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Next up: Outsourcing missile control to China...

      Japan has that contract. But Korean email keeps trying to sell me the latest electronics.

    2. Re:I thought by raalynthslair · · Score: 1

      they do, but they can't send civilian-out-sourcees to war... they are outsourcing supply too, but you won't see Wal-Mart on the fronts. ^_^

      --
      -- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
    3. Re:I thought by andreMA · · Score: 1

      You will see outsourcers and contractors at the "front" such as it is. Think food service and fuel suppy in Iraq; think Halliburton (or Kellog, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of theirs). Oh, I forgot... that war is "over"

    4. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a very, very major defense contractor, and lots and lots of military projects are outsourced to China, albeit still done "under" the US company - but just done by their subsidiary in China.

    5. Re:I thought by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      News at 11: U.S. Army drafts entire country of India!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re:I thought by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      No, no, you got it all wrong:- it is the *United States* that is leading the world in army outsourcing. Consider US Army operations in Phillipines, Taiwan and S Korea for preference.

      The Indian Army, otoh, has had just one not-so-wow experience in Sri Lanka in the late 80's.

  7. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    you dont know how to close I tags either!

  8. But... by James+A.+J.+Joyce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...how do they determine who has "computer skills"? And is this really feasible? How will they make someone work for them? How will they even know if a computer programmer is a computer programmer? Do they have some kind of national database of them? This isn't anything like normal conscription, and sounds like a dodgy idea to me.

    1. Re:But... by tuxtomas · · Score: 1

      I downloaded Americas Army for Linux. Would that suggest I am technically proficient and like to kick ass?
      Vancouver is supposed to be great!

      --
      Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
    2. Re:But... by prat393 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about this: if you can evade the FBI's wiretaps, then you get drafted.

    3. Re:But... by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Big Brother is watching.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...how do they determine who has "computer skills"?

      When someone writes a missile control program and forgets to convert units from metric to standard, and a missile aimed at Iraq hits Britain, we'll know.

    5. Re:But... by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Funny

      How will they even know if a computer programmer is a computer programmer?

      They check your slashdot user ID number. If it's low enough, you're in. Just like the old draft lottery in the 70's.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:But... by maelstrom · · Score: 1

      OH SHI...

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    7. Re:But... by Ironica · · Score: 1

      how do they determine who has "computer skills"? And is this really feasible? How will they make someone work for them? How will they even know if a computer programmer is a computer programmer? Do they have some kind of national database of them?

      My guess is that is the point of the article; they're starting to develop that database. Hopefully, what they'll do is change the selective service forms and just tag new registrants as having computer skills. Otherwise, they'll just check your records... "Hm, BS in Computer Science... you get a gold star." It's not terribly difficult to find this stuff out, especially if your resume is available online.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    8. Re:But... by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      One way to determine if a computer programmer is a computer programmer is to look at their tax return. Your occupation is reported on the return.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    9. Re:But... by 8Complex · · Score: 0

      Oh crap... and I'm a mechanical draftsman! All I do is SIT in front of a computer all day!

    10. Re:But... by Erbo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, guess I'm screwed then...wonder if they'll let us come up with our own cadences?

      "Linux users are the best!"
      "Linux users are the best!"
      "Microsoft don't pass the test!"
      "Microsoft don't pass the test!"
      "Sound off!"
      "One! Two!"
      "Sound off!"
      "Three! Four!"
      "Bring it on down!"
      "One, two, three, four, one, two, THREE-FOUR!"

      That's if we don't just decide to start singing "Do-Wah-Diddy-Diddy"...

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    11. Re:But... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Don't you fill out "occupation" on your tax form?

    12. Re:But... by EngrBohn · · Score: 1

      Well, I might be tempted to panic... except I voluntarily raised my right hand almost fifteen years ago and haven't yet been tempted away.

      --
      cb
      Oooh! What does this button do!?
    13. Re:But... by TexasDex · · Score: 0

      What kind of a computer programmer are you? You didn't even start counting at zero!

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    14. Re:But... by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

      "Private CmdrTaco"? I guess his only hope to avoid being made fun of is to work his way up to lieutenant.

    15. Re:But... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2, Funny

      They check your slashdot user ID number. If it's low enough, you're in. Just like the old draft lottery in the 70's.

      Oh, fuck.

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    16. Re:But... by jafac · · Score: 1

      . . . better you than me.
      I've got a bum back anyway.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    17. Re:But... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      In this man's army the programmers count in binary.

      Sound off!
      1! 10!
      Sound off!
      11! 100!

    18. Re:But... by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      Simple. If you're too stupid to pretend to be stupid, or too well-careered to pretend to be stupid, you can't avoid the draft.

      The rest of us -- good liars without decent employment history -- will gladly take the jobs of the aforementioned.

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    19. Re:But... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they'll give out sign-on bonuses.

      All my friends know I could easily get in to learn Arabic, along with the languages I already know, and then with my IT background.

      Shit, the only way I could be more desirable to the military is if I had a health-care background.

      Then I'd be CHOICE draft material... shia....

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  9. There are worse things, I guess by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're drafting you for 'special skills' you're pretty unlikely to get stuck out someplace where you have a high chance of catching a bullet (or some high explosive.) This is probably far less true in the case of people with language skills, however.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:There are worse things, I guess by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      If they're drafting you for 'special skills' you're pretty unlikely to get stuck out someplace where you have a high chance of catching a bullet (or some high explosive.) This is probably far less true in the case of people with language skills, however.

      Like, say, the Pentagon? Anywhere you put a gathering of people working on a military project, you create a target.

    2. Re:There are worse things, I guess by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

      Like, say, the Pentagon? Anywhere you put a gathering of people working on a military project, you create a target.

      That's absurd. You could also say that office workers are at a higher risk because of the WTC bombings.

    3. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Ugmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was in the AF 5 or 6 years ago. I joined up as a programmer. You could be a programmer or an operator. Programmers could only go to England, Australia, Hawaii and certain (nice) bases in the continental US. Operators could end up anywhere there was a computer, possibly in forward positions, definitely in the middle of the desert in Saudi Arabia.

      I thought I had made out great but shortly after my training was complete they changed all the rules and any programmer not actually programming day to day was instantly an operator. Since at that time the policy was to buy all new software off the shelf I wasn't programming (shell scripts don't count).

      The point is that you can't count on anything once you are in. The rules change day to day and moment to moment. Also a lot of people in the "safe" Saudi cities away from the front died in the first Gulf war due to Scuds.

      Finally, considering the amount of hi-tech equipment becoming standard, a programmer might find himself in a tent in Syria doing maintenance on a Tank or in the jungle in the Philipines fixing a soldiers heads up display.

    4. Re:There are worse things, I guess by loraksus · · Score: 1

      yeah, because, you know, radar installations, communication / command centers, and pretty much every other job where geeks are involved aren't priority targets and stuff. . .
      Granted, they are protected better, but it takes only a couple rounds of artillery or a skirmish to ruin your day.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    5. Re:There are worse things, I guess by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Office workers in skyscrapers, absolutely, they make wonderful targets, as the followup to the failed bombing attempt demonstrated.

      I wouldn't want to be an office worker engaged in military work in a skyscraper.

      In contrast, look how easy the the low, wide Pentagon got off, comparitively speaking.

      If you are engaged in military work, or just standing next to someone engaged in military work, you are a target. Remember that story a few days ago about GE developing luminous panels? That's just a few miles down the road from me, right next to the nuclear test facility, where they do things like work on nuclear submarines and missle systems. A couple blocks from my house is where America made most of its tanks until recently. A few blocks the other way is where most of the worlds electric generating turbines came from until recently.

      I may be quietly working with OLED technology for civilian marine use, but I'm sitting down the street from the guy working on the missle systems, and I grew up with Russian missles pointed at me, just because I'm here, and for all I know have Chinese and Korean missles pointed at me right now.

      My location puts me at risk.

      Office workers in the Empire State Building are sitting under the communications hub for NYC and environs, like the harbor.

      And it's an easy frickin' target, even if it's proven to be a might tougher than modern buildings. We make planes and missles larger and more explosive than B-25s these days.

      I'd rather work uptown in a nice, anonymous, three story, thank you very much.

      KFG

    6. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      Programmers could only go to England, Australia, Hawaii and certain (nice) bases in the continental US. Operators could end up anywhere there was a computer, possibly in forward positions, definitely in the middle of the desert in Saudi Arabia.

      From what I've seen many contractors don't have the luxury of this distinction. One job I interviewed for had more than one interviewer ask, "So, do you like to travel?" They also said things like, "Since you are a civilian, we can't force you to go, but you would be expected to go" in a way that made people who stayed home sound like communist weenies.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    7. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're drafting you for 'special skills' you're pretty unlikely to get stuck out someplace where you have a high chance of catching a bullet

      Bullshit. Most of the people dying in Iraq *are* special skills people: engineers (the old fashioned kind), clerks, logistics and anything else that's non-combat. That's what happens in guerilla warfare... you fail to convince the other side to tit-for-tat with the gorillas.

      What a foolish statement.

    8. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Ann+Elk · · Score: 1

      You are correct about the language skills. My niece is in the US Navy. Her areas of expertise are cryptanalysis and Arabic language. Guess where she's been spending her time lately?

    9. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Most of the people dying in Iraq *are* special skills people: engineers (the old fashioned kind), clerks, logistics and anything else that's non-combat.

      Clerking and logistics certainly aren't "special" skills. Even most of the "engineers" aren't so skilled. To civilians, an engineer has a college degree and designs projects- to the military, engineers are high-school equivalent privates who build projects with spade and hammer in hand. (Of course army engineers have officers, but I'm talking about the majority)

      And even if the non-combat types were really special skills, you'd be wrong too. Of US+UK military deaths, 75% are in a combat-oriented field like infantry, artillery, recon, or police. Jobs like engineer, sapper, support, HQ, and intel make up less than 25% of deaths.

    10. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As you might point out, the drive to work would likely be more dangerous than any terrorist threat at work. Yet another reason to keep riding that bike of yours. ;)

      How many died on 9/11? 4,000? How many die each year in the US due to automobiles? Something like 40,000?

    11. Re:There are worse things, I guess by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well, I was thinking about military risk in time of war, not terrorist activity, but I can't say I've actually lost much sleep over the risk I'm under, even during the 60s when the threat was considered imminent.

      I think I'm more likely to be mauled by a cheetah that escaped from the Catskill Game Farm than discomfited by a terrorist. I have friends, family and acquaintences who weren't so lucky though, because they lived in NYC or boarded a plane in Boston. The WTC was a known high risk building. The people who brought it down tried to do so once, and told us they'd keep trying. The people in the Chrysler Building didn't have much to worry about.

      If you're sitting in or on a known target it isn't completely paranoid to have some concern.

      Especially a military target in time of war. The White House would be a lot harder to protect if it were tall and skinny instead of broad and flat, and a lowly janitor there is at much higher risk than a general visitin his cousin in Peoria.

      Risk concentrates in hotspots. Only 50,000 Americans died in the Vietnam war. About the same as die in auto accidents per year. But your risk driving to work is a bit lower than your risk assualting Hamburger Hill.

      Avoid the hotspots and you avoid most of the overall risk. Like riding your bicycle where you're least likely to get hit by a car. Which, oddly enough, isn't always where the automobile traffic density is lowest and/or slowest.

      Beware of the crossroads, on your bike, or where you work for the military.

      KFG

    12. Re:There are worse things, I guess by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I may be quietly working with OLED technology for civilian marine use, but I'm sitting down the street from the guy working on the missle systems, and I grew up with Russian missles pointed at me, just because I'm here, and for all I know have Chinese and Korean missles pointed at me right now.

      I doubt that industrial targets are a significant target in modern strategic nuclear warfare. From what I've heard, the first goal of an initial nuclear strike is to eliminate the other side's nuclear capability. It's really the only thing you *can* do and not lose -- anything else and you're dead. I would expect that the second set of targets would be actual military targets -- naval battle groups, bases, anything that can be used to fight. Third would be weapon stockpiles and energy production facilities -- "support" targets, and only then production facilities. The thing is, when you have aircraft with ranges capable of covering your adversary, wars aren't likely to *take* the years that let US industry play such a big role in World War II.

    13. Re:There are worse things, I guess by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      If you don't know that the Pentagon is considered a military target, you must be pretty damn stupid.

    14. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but jobs like engineer, sapper, support, HQ, and intel probably make up less than 25% of the deployed forces...

    15. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Ugmo · · Score: 1

      When I was in the AF seemed to be going through a transition period. The old standard had a few places where software was written and a lot of software still ran on big machines. Operators were called "tape monkeys" meaning their biggest job was swapping out backup tapes. Most of the operators I worked with were SysAdmins, IT Desktop Support, Help Desk people very similiar to any large company IT department. That was part of the reason that they made the switch in classifications from programmers to operartors. The programmers were supposed to be doing the hard jobs and the operators were supposed to be doing mindless jobs but in practice there was little difference and much overlap.

      Just before I left there was a lot of emphasis on the ability to set up networks in the middle of nowhere in a short period of time. I am sure by now the idea of having a full IT department in a forward position is considered normal.

      The end result is that if you do go into the Armed forces as a computer expert, don't expect to stay in a big climate controlled office building in the US. You will probably have a good chance of being in a forward position.

    16. Re:There are worse things, I guess by goodviking · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, with modern unmaned warfare, you could now be on the front lines from a cushioned seat in the states. It reminds me way too much of Ender's game. When war becomes a video game, does it also become too tempting to just bomb everything?

    17. Re:There are worse things, I guess by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yes, we were known to be a tertiary target. We were a unique conglomeration of technology (equal at least to Los Alamos), industry and a transport hub, all within a few mile radius, the major power lines to NYC ran right through now that I think of it too, but hardly as important to nail as, say, the Groton sub base. We developed ( I can see a Manhatten project lab from my house roof)and made nukes, but we didn't "have" any.

      I doubt we're even that now. We're more important as a research center, but most of the industry has gone and rail choke points are of little consequence anymore. We used to light and haul the world. The very first commercial television broadcast was made a few blocks from my house, as well as the first color broadcast. Back then we had the highest per capita density of PhDs in the world.

      Now we mostly lead the world in cockroaches and crack hos.

      Times change.

      KFG

    18. Re:There are worse things, I guess by thogard · · Score: 1

      No reasonable army would even consider the pentagon as a primary target. The last thing you want to do to your enemy is remove a large chunk of its ineffective bureaucracy.

    19. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 1

      Ft Gordon, perhaps?

      --Korean Cryptolinguist

    20. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Justice8096 · · Score: 1

      Umm... no, that wouldn't be true. A long time ago I worked for a defense contractor. The government offered any of us who would volunteer to go double-pay plus bonuses to do so.
      Some people asked what would happen if we were captured. They said we wouldn't ever be in the hands of the enemy, even if the enemy found us. No one volunteered.
      Honestly though, with the state of the field nowdays, the military would be better off doing what I had seen. The military offers much better health, retirement and survivor benefits than many programming companies nowdays.
      Heck - a commercial company I worked for ordered a girl with relatives in the PLO, who had been born in Syria, to travel to Israel with a rushed passport, with equipment that she couldn't let leave her sight... Fortunately her coworkers convinced the company that that was a good way to lose their equipment... just to put this all into perspective.

    21. Re:There are worse things, I guess by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      If they're drafting you for 'special skills' you're pretty unlikely to get stuck out someplace where you have a high chance of catching a bullet (or some high explosive.) This is probably far less true in the case of people with language skills, however.

      "No, sir, those aren't languages on my resume. They're linguines. I'm an expert in several linguines."

    22. Re:There are worse things, I guess by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Knowing military intelligence, Antarctica. [Sorry, oldie but goodie. Hope she stays safe!]

    23. Re:There are worse things, I guess by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      does it also become too tempting to just bomb everything?

      It already is too tempting. We bomb everything we can! ...but you need ground troops to hold the territory.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    24. Re:There are worse things, I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riding my big Arab cock, quite obviously.

    25. Re:There are worse things, I guess by raile · · Score: 1
      Worse things than completely going against your beliefs and morals?!? Here's a heads-up to the parent poster who apparently lives on the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: aversion isn't always about the danger or risk of dying.

      It's nice to see graduates of the Milgram Experiment are still alive and well, and posting on Slashdot.

    26. Re:There are worse things, I guess by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Tell that to AL Queda.

    27. Re:There are worse things, I guess by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're a bunch more likely to be at the site that gets hit with a ballistic missile. You'll be doing fine after the atomization process occurs.

      I'd rather take my chances on the front line, where I have a chance to maybe see the people who are going to shoot at me.

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
  10. Move along, nothing to see here. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The present operation of the US Selective Service is more or less trivial because the draft system not active, and it takes an Act of Congress in order to activate it. However, an Act of Congress can also totally rewrite the rules,

    The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women. In this day and age, that makes it a political untouchable. To require women to register will spark protests, but to not require them to do so would lead to court injunctions halting the draft process.

    Congresspeople also have learned something from the Vietnam war. If a war is so unpopular that we are out of "weekend warrior" reserves and we can't convince people to join on their own, as a politician you should be voting to force a withdrawl rather allow the war to continue. To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it.

    The only people in Congress who called for a draft during recent years have been those who oppose the president's military plans. By rolling out a draft, or even raising the possiblity of a draft, a war effort suddenly becomes less popular.

    Bottom line... the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation, just like all of the city fallout shelters that were built in the USA during the cold war to be prepared for a nuclear bomb that never came. I'd consider anything new we hear from the Selective Service to be a rarely-used bureaucracy trying to justify its existance because in tight budgets, cutting the Selective Service's staff is always a low-pain cut.

    1. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Cocteaustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the absence of an Equal Rights Amendment, discrimination between men and women is absolutely constitutional. At any rate, military necessity has trumped virtually every constitutional guarantee ever extended to Americans, so whether it's constitutional or not is pretty much moot.

    2. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by josecanuc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We normally wouldn't even need to use the Reserves except that a prior administration decided we didn't need as large of an armed forces and proceeded to downsize the military.

      There is no shortage of folks willing to enlist, but the military branches just weren't able to take them all due to policies limiting the size of the military.

      Then, the current administration started mobilizing large numbers of troops and therefore, we needed to dip into the Reserve. Unfortunately, the Reserves are not as well trained as full-time soldiers.

    3. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it.

      The fundamentals have not changed between WW2 and now, and a draft was certainly needed to prosecute that "good war". While other parts of your comment may indeed be "insightful", this part most certainly is not. There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.

      If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 was, be sure that a draft will be put in place. This will not be a sign that we've "already lost", but rather a sign that we are willing to do what it takes to win.

      --
      Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
    4. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Indeed the arguements made by people who advocated the ERA can be turned around and used 'on' them now, since their assertion that discrimination is legal unless the amendment is passed can be taken at face value.

      --
      ---
    5. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From the 14th Amendment
      "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    6. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Congresspeople also have learned something from the Vietnam war. If a war is so unpopular that we are out of "weekend warrior" reserves and we can't convince people to join on their own, as a politician you should be voting to force a withdrawl rather allow the war to continue. To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it."

      Not all wars can be withdrawn from, popular or not. What would happen if we decided to stop the Global War on Terrorism? And what about the '91 Gulf War. Lot of good it did us withdrawing. War is a choice between bad and worse. When you choose not to go to war hopefully you are choosing 'bad'. As Jeanette Rankin said "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake".

    7. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by dbc001 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      it takes an Act of Congress in order to activate it.

      It also takes an act of congress to declare war. declarations of war were probably originally intended to be used only in doomsday situations as well. Now we now that the concept of war has been perverted and twisted so that while our politicians claim to wage a successful war, they have also carefully made sure that war was never declared, bypassing the checks and balances that you originally suggested will protect us from the draft.
    8. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by pr0t0plasm · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's right.
      Nobody's going to revive the draft.
      Just like nobody's going support Patriot II.
      I mean, this is America. That can't happen here

      --
      - - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil
    9. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.

      Every war considered worth fighting by the people can most certainly be fought with volunteers.

      Every war considered worth fighting by the politicians may or may not be fightable with volunteers -- but since the people are the boss of the politicians in a free society, that's just too darn bad in the latter case.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    10. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We normally wouldn't even need to use the Reserves except that a prior administration decided we didn't need as large of an armed forces and proceeded to downsize the military.

      While it's true that Clinton downsized the military, blaming him for having to call up the Reserves and Guard is silly--or have you forgotten Desert Storm?

      The simple fact is that we've ALWAYS relied on non-regulars when it comes time to fight a real war. In EVERY major war the US has fought, the bulk of its forces have been made up of reservists, guardsman, draftees, militia, whatever, and not regular military.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by s20451 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fundamentals have not changed between WW2 and now, and a draft was certainly needed to prosecute that "good war".

      The biggest lesson of every military conflict since the first Gulf War is that manpower is almost irrelevant in the face of technology. Remember, in 1991, Iraq had one of the largest and most battle-experienced armies in the middle East. Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.

      The 1999 war between NATO and Yugoslavia even put an end to the conventional wisdom that invasion by ground forces is required for victory.

      In fact the trend in warfare is to involve as few humans as possible. The second Iraq war was the first large-scale use of unmanned drones in combat; some suggest that the current F-22 will be the last manned fighter jet, and that in the future all military aircraft will be robotic.

      I can imagine a future hypothetical conflict between large, technologically equal adversaries, fought entirely by unmanned vehicles over land, sea, and air. Whichever side's unmanned vehicles ran out first would likely be forced to surrender, given the alternative of certain and pointless death for any human sent to combat the machines.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    12. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      While entering a war that we're not initially involved in (vietnam, korea) evokes a distaste for war and the draft, entering a war that begins with an attack on our soil or territory (pearl harbor) will bring a patriotic response from the population.

      I don't know if you've read the papers recently, but there are threats of attack from al quaida (did I speel that right?) and our actions in the middle east may invoke an all-out war. If this occurs, the military will need to be prepared to ramp up. That's what we're seeing now.

      The military hasn't begun drafting....they've begun preparing for a possible special draft.... I'm happy to see that our military is looking ahead.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    13. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.


      Wow, some "wars worth fighting" require forcing some people, against their will, to fight.

      That's great.
    14. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by kryocore · · Score: 1

      This is so true that I hate it. Women want equality, so we try to give to to them, and blam, they object. Men and Women are not equal, never will be, and never can be.

    15. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Passman · · Score: 1
      Remember, in 1991, Iraq had one of the largest and most battle-experienced armies in the middle East. Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.

      While it was true that Iraq had arguably the best army in the Middle East at the time they were no match for the forces arrayed against them. The Iraq army with its 100k men was formittable, but, compared to the over 500k man force fielded by the coalition they didn't stand a chance. While technology may have played a part in our victory, overwhelming numbers had a much bigger role.

      --
      Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
    16. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women.


      No it's not. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). The reasoning in the decision is pretty clear -- the prohibition of women in combat is constitutionally acceptable, as are the associated selective service regulations.

      I agree it would be politically unpopular, but I do not put it past the politicians in Washington these days. Why? Force strength is far below what it needs to be to conduct our foreign policy as it is. They're making do with reservists and national guardsmen, but that can only work for so long. In an emergent situation, where increasing force strength quickly is deemed necessary, the draft will be used. With a halfway decent economy and lousy military pay, it can't be done by recruiting alone in any reasonable amount of time.

    17. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by sudohnim · · Score: 0

      The biggest lesson of every military conflict since the first Gulf War is that manpower is almost irrelevant in the face of technology.

      Technology, eh? So the US should be able to kick China's arse?

      Remember, in 1991, Iraq had one of the largest and most battle-experienced armies in the middle East. Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.

      Iraq got "spanked" by a much smaller force of smarter, better trained, and much more highly motivated troops. The fact that the US munitions were more acurate also helped.

      --
      Its pretty sad when a commercial OS ships a debugger with their system but no compiler.
    18. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by loraksus · · Score: 1

      If a war is so unpopular that we are out of "weekend warrior" reserves and we can't convince people to join on their own, /quote
      umm. . . You may of have not heard, but there isn't exacltly a ton of reservists wanting to "re-up", and there aren't that many new people joining up.
      Even the Stars and Stripes isn't really sugar coating the situation.
      http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?se ction=104&ar ticle=17516&archive=true

      Granted, it might not be out of moral concern, but if the situation is shitty enough, people will want to leave.

      To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it.

      The US armed forces are depleted. We also have a crapload of nukes, and if we can't fight people off using conventional means, it only leaves a couple options.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    19. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Whichever side's unmanned vehicles ran out first would likely be forced to surrender, given the alternative of certain and pointless death for any human sent to combat the machines.

      At this point, the victorious unmanned vehicles realize that they hold the upper hand, and they turn on their creators. Before long, the planet will be swept clean of those puny blobs of meat and a new race of gleaming metal super-beings will reign supreme! Bwahahahah!!

    20. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Hehheh, looking at the two posts above, I am suddenly reminded by this great quote from Homer:

      "Facts? Facts can be used to prove anything even remotely true!"

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    21. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by egc4ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice try, but in order for the 14th amendment to be implicated (and therefore for Congress to have power to enforce its protections), there must be either a sufficient degree of state involvement with the action or a failure by the state to act in circumstances where the Constitution affirmatively requires action.

      Since none of the Several States has a draft, how exactly does the 14th amendment apply?

      Re-read the first part of the 14th Amendment, Section 1: "No state shall..." Maybe you meant to say Due Process?

    22. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.

      15000 lb. fuel bombs and invisible night attack fighters tend to have that effect on people.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    23. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      That defense is no longer available, because there are women in combat roles, and there's nothing in the way of sending women to the less-than-front-line positions after being drafted.

      The "Tech draft" plan already addresses that, saying that women would be required to register for that one.

    24. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wanted to write a slashdot story about this, but the Selective Service is dead serious about a draft and so is the president. I have in my posession an application to be on the draft board in my county, mailed to me by the Selective Service. YES, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE IS RESTAFFING DRAFT BOARDS. If thats not a wakeup call I dont know what the fuck is.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    25. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by ikoL · · Score: 1

      If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 was, be sure that a draft will be put in place

      If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 there won't be a draft because you can't draft nuclear sludge

    26. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by StalinJoe · · Score: 1

      Erm, 100k? What happened to the reports of Saddam's 1 million man army?

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
    27. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? In 1991, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army, on the order of 1.5Million men. They had a 3-1 numerical advantage.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    28. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't have war on an abstract concept - the "war on terrorism" is as much a lie as the "war on drugs". What america means by "war on terrorism" is "colonial expansion".

    29. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I would question if that sort of war could exist. World War 1 marked the end of all previous styles of war with the machine gun. You charge at me with the entire cavalry of Europe since the beginning of feudalism, and a few people with machine guns can take them out (assuming of course ammo and flat terrain, that's not the point, please don't fight this remark it's just a comparison).
      In WW2 the tank almost made this machine gunner obsolete. This one major advantage was gone as vehicles impenetrable to machine gun fire could now squash them.
      Now what do we have? Planes that can destroy entire battlefields and cannot be stopped. Even without the planes non-nuclear ICBM's can still decimate very large areas with no way of stopping them. Guerilla tactics only work in the least malleable environments (Vietnam), as a simple air strike can take out any defense position.

      Simply put, the thousand vs thousand battles are over, in the sense that they existed in WW2, because air forces are currently unstoppable. I wouldn't say the US has a monopoly of this situation either. I wouldn't put it past Britain, China, Europe, or Russia to be able to destroy any single targets they choose, although they may not be able to do it as many times or with as much accuracy. I also wouldn't put it past Japan to be able to do the same given short preparation (this isn't any sort of stab at Japan, I just think they'd easily be able to "catch up" militarily if circumstances dictated such). In the unlikely situation that all missiles, bombs, and airplanes are "used" up, then we might see it happen. However, information is now omnipresent. I do not believe even the US has the power to mask the position of a million military personal anymore.

    30. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by tealover · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is that we've ALWAYS relied on non-regulars when it comes time to fight a real war. In EVERY major war the US has fought, the bulk of its forces have been made up of reservists, guardsman, draftees, militia, whatever, and not regular military.

      This is either GW Bush posting this or one of his brain-dead sycophants.

      The Vietnam and Korean war rarely made use of reservists or guardsman. This is precisely why GW Bush joined the Texas National Guard.

      So he could be a coward and duck service.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    31. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1

      Moreover the fact that it says "No State" excludes the US military, a federal institution.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    32. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottom line... the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation, just like all of the city fallout shelters that were built in the USA during the cold war to be prepared for a nuclear bomb that never came.

      Which is all the more reason not to join if you're called. By the time a cannon-fodder draft comes along, you're chances out there will be very grim.

    33. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Informative

      That court decision was made in 1981. The primary justification for that decision was rules banning women from engaging in combat, and the findings of a board that the people most needed by a draft would be combat troops.

      While some combat roles may be still banned to women (as in, I'm not sure whether this is the case), others are definitely not. As of 1991, the Navy lifted this ban with respect to air combat. I suspect all of the military branches, allow women to engage in combat in at least this capacity, since I know that there were combat helicopter units with female members way back in Gulf War I.

      I'm sure that lawsuits would be filed if the draft was re-instituted again, and I'm not sure that the ruling would not be changed.

      Frankly, I think that women should either face the same possibility of a draft that men do, or be faced with losing the ability to vote. If a woman wants be an 1800s-style protected housewife instead of a full member of society, fine, but neither should she be accorded the privileges of said member of society.

    34. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      We normally wouldn't even need to use the Reserves except that a prior administration decided we didn't need as large of an armed forces and proceeded to downsize the military.
      Ahh, the old "it doesn't matter what the topic is, blame Clinton" argument. I have a bit of advice for you fanatic Clinton-haters: he hasn't been President for more than three years now, get over it. Blaming Clinton is nothing more than pathetic looserism at this stage in the game. If Clinton's military cuts were so horrible, Bush has had three bloody years to correct them. I note with interest that Mr. Bush did not, in fact, immediately set about increasing the size of the army when he got into office, so obviously it wasn't a priority with him either.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    35. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Technology, eh? So the US should be able to kick China's arse?

      Yup. I'd be comfortable betting on the US in a US-China conflict. of course, since both sides are nuclear powers, there probably wouldn't *be* any conventional warfare anyway.

      Note that "kick China's arse" is different from "invade and occupy China", which would be nearly impossible for anyone in the world.

    36. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 1

      In fact the trend in warfare is to involve as few humans as possible.

      I agree. That's why they're planning to draft technical people.

      --
      Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
    37. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Imperator · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that no court would halt a draft in time of war (they might say "Congress has N months to start drafting women as well"), the failure of ERA doesn't meant the Supreme Court will hold up discrimination based on sex. Try this: advertise a bunch of positions as "for men only". Unless you have a damn good reason, you're setting yourself up for a defeat in court.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    38. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Now we now that the concept of war has been perverted and twisted so that while our politicians claim to wage a successful war, they have also carefully made sure that war was never declared, bypassing the checks and balances that you originally suggested will protect us from the draft.
      Sorry, no. The errors in the checks and balances were discovered during the Vietnam 'War', and patched in 1973 with the passage of the War Powers Act. If Congress chooses to act, they may do so. To date they have not done so.

      Additionally, since only an Act of Congress can reinstate the draft, and such an act would require the President's signature, or a Congressional override of a Presidential veto...

      The checks and balances are still in place and functional.

    39. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      This is either GW Bush posting this or one of his brain-dead sycophants.

      The reading impaired should be careful when they toss around words like brain-dead.

      Here's what I said again--part of what you quoted, even. Try reading the entirety this time, and maybe talk to a good specialist about your comprehension problem.

      In EVERY major war the US has fought, the bulk of its forces have been made up of reservists, guardsman, draftees, militia, whatever, and not regular military.

      As to my being a GWB supporter, you're half-right. Supported him in 2000. Won't be voting for him in 2004.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    40. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats funny, I guess people are being killed by an abstract concept. Never knew it had the power. I guess Sept. 11 was a conspiracy and never happened as well?

    41. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by hitchhacker · · Score: 1


      This will not be a sign that we've "already lost", but rather a sign that we are willing to do what it takes to win.

      And what did "winning" mean in the Vietnam war?
      Stoping a possible communist democracy?!
      Gee, how threatening. No wonder people didn't care about "winning".

      -metric

    42. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Just remember - the "resolution" passed RE The Iraq invasion was intended as a declaration of war, and was stated to be so be the prime sponsor. Just because it doesn't say "we declare war" does NOT mean it's NOT a declaration of war

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    43. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      This is either GW Bush posting this or one of his brain-dead sycophants

      Defending Clinton, instead of blaming him for everything? Highly unlikely.

    44. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Phocas · · Score: 1

      Actually there are lots of Supreme Court cases striking down laws on the basis of gender discrimination. Equal protection works for everyone, it's just that gender doesn't get the "strict scrutiny" that race classifications do but a law can still be unconstitutional even on the lesser standard applicable to gender discrimination.

    45. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      As to my being a GWB supporter, you're half-right. Supported him in 2000. Won't be voting for him in 2004.

      Just OOC, what changed your mind?

    46. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.

      Are we talking about fighting a war, or are we talking about using the military to occupy formerly sovereign countries that have already lost the war against us?

      I don't think the army really needs all that many coders or what have you. Well, unless they are trying to save a buck and not pay all those high-priced defense contractors to do the work. If that's the case, this bill will surely die in committee, because all those defense contractors will not allow their slice of the pie to be diminshed.

    47. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 was, be sure that a draft will be put in place. This will not be a sign that we've "already lost", but rather a sign that we are willing to do what it takes to win.

      The words "willing" and "draft" are mutually exclusive.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    48. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      It's especially moot if you consider that the military is part of the executive branch. Who enforces the orders of the judicial branch, eh?

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    49. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Actually, the current form of the SSS was found legal only because of its purpose: to provide fighting men in time of war. Because women are not allowed into combat positions, drafting them would be unneccessary. However, if the SSS starts putting more effort into figuring out how to draft medical and computer personnel, then that argument loses value, and the courts could very well force them to start drafting women.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    50. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by DrVomact · · Score: 1
      While predictions of this sort are notoriously risky, I'll venture to say that the era of mass warfare conducted by huge mobilized citizen-armies that began with Napoleon is over. Massed armies are nothing but targets for today's battlefield weaponry. Of course, soldiers are still needed, but in much smaller numbers than before.

      But our army is stretched very thin today, even given the much smaller manpower demand of modern warfare. One reason for this is that the present administration has been injudicious in its use of military force; the invasion of Iraq was a waste of lives and resources. More importantly, it leaves us vulnerable if a serious crisis erupts elsewhere. Who do we send if the North Koreans go really bugnuts? What do we throw into the scales if an Islamicist revolution in Pakistan seizes that country's nuclear depots? And remember that Iran has nuclear potential, and a very unstable political situation.

      Solutions for the military manpower problem are not, in principle, difficult, and I don't think they will require a draft: use pay incentives to recruit a few more divisions, and stop throwing them at non-problems. Keep back some reserves at all times.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    51. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      The reason we didn't send reservists and Guardsmen to vietnam wasn't that we didn't have enough, it was to keep those forces ready to counter a Soviet invasion of Europe. It was believed they'd provide a better speedbump than conscripts would.

    52. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Just OOC, what changed your mind?

      Honestly, alot of things. Record deficets is one of them (people like to tar the Democrats with the "tax and spend" brush, but Bush's "tax-cut and spend" is even worse--and I say this as someone who believes that our taxes are way too high.) PATRIOT is another. Our war in Iraq was misguided (at best!) though I believe we have no choice at this point but to see it to its conclusion. I'm disturbed by the issues surrounding his Guard service, which I do not believe have been adaquately explained yet.

      He tacticly (though not actively) supports a number of federal gun control laws that I disagree with (noting my sig, one might gather this is important to me...) He called for (and got) the biggest expansion of Medicare since the system was created--and from what I can see, the extra money coming out of our pockets isn't really buying better coverage! He's presided over the of the biggest expansions of the Federal government in decades. I lost ANY respect I had for the man the day he signed campaign finance "reform" while at the same time claiming it wasn't constitutional.

      For all of the above reasons, and more, I can't in good conscience vote for this man.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    53. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Yeah...sounds like a lot of the same things I have against him (although I voted for Gore in 2000; the debates convinced me he was a lot more qualified than Bush) While I'm registered as an independent and usually vote democratic (and yes, I do support reasonable gun control :-)) at heart I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'd vote against any candidate that's run up the deficit Bush has.

    54. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, the supreme court already ruled the draft constitutional.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    55. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The supreme court has already ruled on the draft and gender descrimination. They said it was fine the way it is.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    56. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      At any rate, military necessity has trumped virtually every constitutional guarantee ever extended to Americans,
      Condidering that even something as fundamental as Magna Carta (put well by Johnson as "No one is above or below the law") has been trumped by a military jail in Cuba, why should people in the US expect their constitutuion to protect them, if the cause is seen to be enough for it to be defied?

      Under US law McCarthy should never have been able to pretend to be a judge and send people to jail, but now one stopped him while he went after the soft targets like scientists and entertainers. Once he started going after the military he was shown up for a fool and got rid of, but some damage had been done. At the time, communism was seen as the big threat that people could use to justify their own agendas, now terrorism is the blank check reason that the unscrupulous will use to justify their own ends - not just someones idealogy that may disagree with yours, but also grubby evil bastards exploiting chaos they create to line their own pockets.

    57. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by codermotor · · Score: 1

      Most people here don't even realize that once you are in the military, the Constitution effectively does not apply to you anymore. The only "rules" that count in the military are codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ. And in that document, the General Articles basically override many of your rights as granted under the Constitution's amendments.

      Both the draft and the UCMJ have already been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than once, and neither is likely to be found "unconstitutional" any time soon, as previous rulings have made both effectively articles of the Constitution itself.

      Any reasoning as to the political function of the draft is pretty irrelevant to those of us who were conscripted during the Viet Nam war, for example. We had two choices: hide somewhere, or surrender. Once the draft is reinstituted, every male (at the least) between the ages of 17 and 35 is in jeapordy of being emigrated to a totalitarian state.

      Think of the military as the fifty-first State.

      As for working within your skill set, you can pretty much get the idea of any guarantee of that out of your head right now. That's not how the military works. Not even now: current enlistees who go in under contract are only guaranteed training in a specific skill. And only if they qualify throughout the whole process - and don't piss someone off in the mean time. However, they are not guaranteed a billet in that skill. Once you've signed the papers and taken the oath, you're pretty much fodder for anything the military wants to use you for. Including being a human lab rat.

      And forget all the idealistic arguments of the form "They can't do that, it's against the law, and the people won't stand for it.". Obviously the people will stand for quite a lot as long as they aren't the ones directly affected. Everyone hopes the other guy will get nabbed, and will not hesitate to point a finger at another in the process of distracting the giant from stomping on themselves instead.

    58. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      While I don't think Gore was more qualified than Bush (unless you're talking strictly about public speaking ability--Gore certainly did use alot fewer "Uhs" and "Ers" when talking) I certainly do wonder "what if" Gore were president. Over the last few years, I've come to the conclusion that things would not be as bad as I was led to believe--like you, I too am a registered independant (though I vote for far more Republicans than I do Democrats) and, personally, I hate our current two-party duopoly on power. I've tried hard not to vote for "the lesser of the two evils" but admit that in 2000, I held my nose and supported the "Anybody but Gore" ticket. That was a big mistake, and one I do not plan on repeating.

      yes, I do support reasonable gun control :-)

      This might surprise you, but so do I--I just think our definition of "reasonable" differs considerably.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    59. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      Just like your brave, independant, Congress voted down the civil rights tromping patriot acts. Yes, siree! You can count on Congress to not rubber stamp "security" related laws. Gosh, darn, nothing to worry about at all.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    60. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by gotih · · Score: 1

      seriously yo,

      there have been so many major breaches of procedure in recent history (guantanamo, 2000 election, tarrifs in violation of trade agreements, withdrawl from weapons treaties...) that i wouldn't be surprised if once again we break the checks and balances rule (as was done in the prescedent setting vietnam war) and reinstate the draft. of course, it would be politically preferable for bush to do it after securing a second term.

      finally, you put war in quotes; what makes you think vietnam wasn't a war?

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    61. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by jerky42 · · Score: 1

      The War Powers Act is a sham.
      Presidents don't challenge it, because they know that Congress can just cut off funding for things they don't like.
      Neither side wants to use the War Powers Act, because the constitutionality has not been defined, and both sides know they can pretty much work around it anyway.
      Also, for everyone out there talking about an undeclared war, there is no specific constitutional requirement that says what the words of the declaration must be. Congress authorizing force is constitutionally the same as declaring war, and this has been done in both Iraq wars, and Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin resolution). Congress can cut off funds anytime it wishes to bring the troops home.

      --
      The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must.
    62. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by k_head · · Score: 1

      Why go to war if you are not going to invade and occupy them?

      Once our puppets are firmly seated in Iraq we will have lot of cheap oil (iraq will not be allowed to join OPEC). Every time OPEC reduces production our oil wells in Iraq ill increase production to offset price hikes. What's in china that we want?

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    63. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:

      a) Know how to handle a gun correctly
      b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies

      In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.

      I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?

      As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget. Of course, I suppose now we'll never know..

    64. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by k_head · · Score: 1

      " We normally wouldn't even need to use the Reserves except that a prior administration decided we didn't need as large of an armed forces and proceeded to downsize the military."

      That's true of course. Clinton never thought that invading and occupying countries was a good thing. He waged one war (bosnia) and he did it by only using airpower and getting commitments from Nato and UN forces.

      In Clinton's view there is no need for a large military because the US does not invade and occupy other nations. Clintons policy was that the US would intervene during humanaterian crisises and helps out with airpower and intelligence (and money of course). It was a good strategy and it worked quite well.

      This administration is much more about building an American empire and occupying countries who have crucial natural resources that we want.

      Different world views and strategies require different configurations of the military. Bush needs a huge military because he needs to occupy a few countries.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    65. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by alcmaeon · · Score: 1
      "Bottom line... the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation, just like all of the city fallout shelters that were built in the USA during the cold war to be prepared for a nuclear bomb that never came."

      Don't you really mean to say "just like all of the Fallout Shelter signs that were printed and stuck on the side of public buildings such as schools durng the cold war to fool the masses into thinking our goverment was doing something to protect them."

      Alcmaeon

    66. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every politician is in favor of reasonable gun control. If you're interested, read the talk.politics.guns newsgroup. Sometimes people will write a letter to their congressman about gun control, and the letters they get back are almost always so vague that you can't tell whether it was written by an anti-gun or pro-gun congressman.

    67. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:

      a) Know how to handle a gun correctly
      b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies

      In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.

      I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?


      If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA. Most people who support gun control see the NRA as a giant political machine--which (sadly) it is these days--but that's a relatively recent development, dating back to the 1970s. The NRA's core mission (which it has been doing for over 130 years) is education in firearms safety and marksmanship. It takes both of these tasks very seriously, and there's no organization in the world better at doing it.

      What you suggest really is "common sense," and a law offered that aimed to accomplish that (without unduly imposing on the law abiding) would probably earn the SUPPORT of the NRA, unless it were proposed by someone like Dianne Feinstein, or was written in such as way as to be more than what it claimed.

      No one wants someone who doesn't know how to handle a firearm to own one. No one wants violent felons to own guns. No one wants to see kids get dead because their parents didn't keep them safe. It's the mechanisms that are proposed obstensibly to prevent the above that we object to.

      As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget

      I agree that Gore was definitely more specific than Bush, and very possibly would have done a better job. OTOH, Bush is an MBA and one would expect an MBA to be able to handle budgeting. Of course, lots of MBAs run companies into the ground, too. :(

      By the way, if you're ever in east TN, be sure to drop me a line. I know more than a couple of NRA certified instructors, and I bet you'd find their opinions to be fairly interesting.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    68. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      If you're interested, read the talk.politics.guns newsgroup

      I've been there, and can't say I like it very much--it's too much of a flame fest (on both sides.)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    69. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by SLot · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I think that women should either face the same possibility of a draft that men do, or be faced with losing the ability to vote. If a woman wants be an 1800s-style protected housewife instead of a full member of society, fine, but neither should she be accorded the privileges of said member of society.

      Amen.

      I'm sure this will get modded to troll or flamebait, but I agree with you 100%.

      I'm always tempted to tell those women that rail about how equal they should be: "You've come a long way baby! Didja sign up for the draft? No? Then shut it. Yeah yeah, you can do anything I can do, but you don't have to die to do it."

    70. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA

      True; I'm just going by what I read in the paper. It seems that whenever there's a proposed bill that would institute any kind of checks or require something like gun locks, the NRA is against it.

      For example, in 2000 Colorado passed a bill requiring background checks at gun shows. (That would be the enforcement of point b above) The NRA funded the opposition to it. (Specifically, the bill required any seller at a gun show to run a background check before selling someone a gun, wheras previously only liscensed dealers had that requirement; you could sell hundreds of guns without background checks as long as you claimed to be selling from your private collection. It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check)

      While I'm aware that the NRA is active in firearms education, the impression that I get from their activities in Colorado is that they oppose any restriction on gun ownership.

    71. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by GregChant · · Score: 1

      The reason they're restaffing draft boards is to restock the number of people retiring. Contrary to popular belief, the draft boards are around even during peace time.

      Restocking of the staff boards means nothing.

    72. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Randseed · · Score: 1
      If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 was, be sure that a draft will be put in place. This will not be a sign that we've "already lost", but rather a sign that we are willing to do what it takes to win.

      And if the government decides that it's a proper use of my life to draft me, at gunpoint, to go to off and get used as cannon fodder, the cost-benefits analysis shows that I'm better off having a shootout with the lackie that himself got out of being used as cannon fodder by being a draft officer.

      All the arguments for equal rights for women, womens sufferage, the ban of slavery, affirmative action, equal housing laws, anti-descrimination laws, equal opportunity employment laws, racial quotas, and other such crap apply to the draft. If I can't advertise "men only" positions in the paper, get an advantage over women in academic admissions processes, etc., then they damned well better get their asses thrown on the front line like everyone else. Otherwise they aren't equal, and nobody should be treating them as such.

      Yet does anyone else find it just a tad suspicious that the rabid man-hating feminists aren't lining up to DEMAND that women be included in the draft because not doing so descriminates against them and devalues them as human beings? Didn't think so.

    73. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 1
      The simple fact is that we've ALWAYS relied on non-regulars when it comes time to fight a real war. In EVERY major war the US has fought, the bulk of its forces have been made up of reservists, guardsman, draftees, militia, whatever, and not regular military.

      This is probably because a large bit of the "regular military" is recent enlistees. "Reservist" says, to me, someone that's completed several years of on-the-job training, and isn't enough of a discipline to have gotten kicked out.

      That, or it's just the DoD's way of saying "Wait, you thought we were through? Nope, bend over and grab your ankles, because we're back for more."

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    74. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Frankly, I think that women should either face the same possibility of a draft that men do, or be faced with losing the ability to vote.


      The issue is a little more complex than that, at least for combat positions. There is that whole strength/speed advantage that men have, which can be kind of important in getting from point A to point B without being shot and killed and losing the war. And I'm all for winning. As quickly as possible, ruthlessly as necessary.

      Given known statistical variation in human anatomy, it's mostly going to be men in roles requiring high levels of speed or stamina, which are more likely to end up involving high velocity pieces of metal or heavy backpacks. Women will end women up in roles that don't.

      That affects the number (relatively) of men and women you can draft, and probably the rates at which you're going to have to do it.

      Note that I'm not saying women shouldn't be drafted, but that the reality is there probably wouldn't be the same probability of being drafted for men and women, and there shouldn't be. Ideals are nice, but I count lives, not male lives or female lives, and 15k men + 15k women vs 20k men dead ... well, I'm a cold blooded bitch. I'd make the same call if it were vs 29k women.

      Of course, if it makes the guys feel any better, their misery ends when the war does. Women will be pressured even after it to bear and raise children (to renew the pool of potential cannon fodder for the next war of course, even if no one will say it. Or to prop up social security). Anyone who doesn't believe this is oblivious to the level of pressure already directed at women about this, especially in the US (why, I don't know. They have the highest fertility rate in the 1st world). Personally, I'd rather be shot at than a mom (a definite YMMV there, I'm unusual, I know it).

      Which brings up the thought that men are biologically more expendable than women. A society of 200 people that loses 99 of 100 men is in better shape (vis a vis potential for the survival of the society) than one that loses 99 of 100 women.

      But some risk of service for all should be a requirement of citizenship, even if it's a somewhat different probability for each gender. And oh... the first thing I'd do? Norplant any woman who enlists/gets drafted. Pregnancy should not be an option, or a way out of the military.
    75. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didja sign up for the draft? No? Then shut it.

      Right. 'Cause the reason I didn't sign up had nothing to do with the fact that I couldn't.

      Now if you'd asked Gonna sign up that'd be a whole 'nother question. One that had some actual relevance given the impossibility of changing the past but not the future.

      Well, barring guys with really long scarves.

    76. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by GrodinTierce · · Score: 1
      While actually defeating another nation-state in battle can be quite easily accomplished by the current US military, it's the other stuff that necessitates the draft. That stuff includes, primarily, occupation/peacekeeping. Though technology can certainly help, there is ultimately no substitute for "boots on the ground".

      That's actually part of the problem in Iraq; because we were able to win the war with such a small force, we didn't/don't have enough guys around to maintain order.

      --


      Tierce
      Who sponsors your feelings?
    77. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This statement does not accord with history. The US military has a long history of intervention in foreign lands, beginning with the expedition against the Barbary pirates. Such wars were waged by career military (professional soldiers) for the most part. Things were different before the Cold War, and things will--MUST--be different after. Read Max Boot's _The Savage Wars of Peace_ for the military story, and Philip Bobbitt's mammoth _The Shield of Achilles_ to understand where we have been and where we are going in worldwide Affairs of State. Bobbitt came as close as anyone to actually predicting 9/11; his recounting of the end of the Cold War sent shivers up my spine--and I was well read on it as it was happening; and if you have never heard of Col. Edward Mandel House, you've missed one of the architects of the 20th century, and of the modern presidential campaign. Sorry to make this a paean, but the book is that good. Bobbitt has taught history at Oxford and constitutional law in Texas, has argued the same before the Supreme Court, and spent 12 years in the State Department; he knows whereof he writes.

    78. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check

      It's worth noting that the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine shootings would have passed the background check. I can't see how it's possible to hold up Columbine as the reason we need these laws, when they wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

      Also, I've got a question for you: As you noted, dealers are required to conduct background checks (no matter if they sell the weapon at their store, or at a gun show) while private parties are exempt. Why should this be any different at a gun show? What purpose does it really serve? Why wouldn't the two parties attempting to avoid the background check leave the gun show, and conduct the sale in the parking lot?

      One would need to require background checks on ALL sales (which, by the way, is an idea most gun owners would be open to, given the proper frame) in order to have any real impact. So why even bother with gun shows?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    79. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine shootings would have passed the background check. I can't see how it's possible to hold up Columbine as the reason we need these laws, when they wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

      I didn't say it's the reason we need the laws. I said it's the reason it passed. Public sentiment was running high enough that the republicans didn't shoot it down like most gun control bills.

      Why wouldn't the two parties attempting to avoid the background check leave the gun show, and conduct the sale in the parking lot?
      Because they made that illegal also?

      One would need to require background checks on ALL sales (which, by the way, is an idea most gun owners would be open to, given the proper frame) in order to have any real impact. So why even bother with gun shows?

      Ok, suppose we tried to make a law requiring exactly that. What do you think the chances are of it passing? With Colorado being a conservative state and the NRA sending out mailings opposing any attempt at gun control, I'm surprised when any gun control legislation gets passed. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, of course, but I just don't see it happening.

    80. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      You're right, that politicians would rather touch a live third rail like social security or increase taxes as well as institute a draft.

      However, somewhere I've read where many reservists terms are set to expire sometime this year. A lot of these folks were planning on a lot less action than what they're getting now in Iraq.

      If the US exit strategy doesn't play out nicely, then there could be a strong need for personnel. And either you draft them or you pay them more. That latter option is more difficult considering the half trillion dollar annual deficits we're running right now.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    81. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      ...the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation
      Look, that's very nice and all -- but it can still kill me. I still have a problem with that, despite how "unlikely" or "dire" the situations where it will occur might be. I don't keep prepped C-4 bombs in my house, because they might go off. Why is it okay to have this ludicrous thing in place when the best thing it can do is absolutely wrong and awful?
      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    82. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by yakovlev · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but the war in the Pacific actually supports his point.

      In WW2, the Pacific war was won by the atomic bomb, which prevented the bloodbath (read: additional draft) that would have resulted from an invasion of japan. If the US is in a war that they NEED to win, and are so undermanned that they NEED to institute a draft, it's time to prepare to use nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we're not really in a war we need to win, and we should move troops from where they aren't needed to where they are.

      The only possible exception is an invasion of our own soil, but even then, I doubt that there would be much trouble getting enough volunteers, and there would still be circumstances where use of nuclear weapons would be appropriate.

      In other words, nuclear weapons are the trump card. If backed into a corner, we should use them, or else why have them? Fighting a war that is so bad that we need to reinstitute the draft is a pretty good example of being backed into such a corner.

      We have nuclear weapons. Don't mess with us. We ARE "willing to do what it takes to win."

    83. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They barely considered it.

      "As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government
      from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing
      to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war
      declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition
      of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth
      Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect
      is refuted by its mere statement." -- 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

      How about the theory that the plain language of the amendment, which says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" sure looks like it applies to involuntary service in the military.

      Basically, the state just said "it's not slavery when we do it because we said so."

    84. Re:Move along, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't find your point in the last paragraph suspicious because it just isn't true:


      The equal rights amendment would make voluntary, as well as compulsory, military service available to women and men on the same basis," declared New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug, a radical Marxist and founder of the modern feminist movement. Writing in the April 1971 Yale Law Review, Professor Thomas Emerson, another radical ERA proponent, insisted that exempting women from the draft would be intolerably "sexist":

      Such obvious differential treatment for women as exemption from the draft, exclusion from the service academies, and more restrictive standards for enlistment will have to be brought into conformity with the Amendment's basic prohibition of sex discrimination.... Under the ERA, the Women's Army Corps would be abolished.... Women will serve in all kinds of units, and they will be eligible for combat duty....

      Thus Rep. Schmitz was hardly an alarmist when he warned that under the ERA, the federal government would have "not merely the 'right,' but the 'constitutional obligation' ... to snatch our daughters into the Army, with all that would imply even now, when we at least maintain separate women's units and do not set the women to driving tanks or clearing minefields...."

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/01-26-2004/ draft.htm
  11. How is this off-topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's about a MILITARY DRAFT. One of the exemptions from draft is type 1 diabetes.

    1. Re:How is this off-topic? by leifm · · Score: 4, Funny

      One the bright side this may be the only way I ever get a coding job.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    2. Re:How is this off-topic? by sglines · · Score: 1

      After you're "hired" you'll be "outsourced" to places you wouldn't want to go as a tourist.

  12. Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by MrZaius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're this desperate for workers, is there desperation reflected in wage scales, benefits, etc?

    What's a guy make with a freshly-minted bachellaureate in computer science make, working for the military? Where do most of them end up, both in geographical and task-related terms? How much control over where they put you does a new officer have?

    1. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's a guy make with a freshly-minted bachellaureate in computer science make

      About 7 bucks an hour at the local Wal-Mart

    2. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have a bachelor's degree, then you should start out as an officer. A 2nd lieutenant makes about $27,000. If you have a degree in computer science and don't suck, you will get promoted very quickly.

    3. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the point of it. The whole point is so that Americans have more disposible income to buy shit. Then the companies that get the money from the populace are able to hire more workers, and manufacture more goods, hence selling more goods, then hire more workers. The more employed Americans, the better. Now, morons that banked that money right away sort of undid the whole good idea it was. Then they make fun of Bush. Smart people.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    4. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution to 'massive tax cuts' is for big chunks of the federal bureacracy to dry up and blow away. Not to raise the taxes up again and order new chrome plated wastebaskets for all federal staffers.

      I know that folks like you resent low taxes, but that's what people want.

    5. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by bsharitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget that the $27,000 is just your base bay. On top of that you either live on base for free(including electricity and water), or get a housing allowence which changes depending on where you are and your rank, and family. Plus health and dental on top of that.

    6. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the selling point. I have a company. I saved about 10k in taxes. I hired no one.

      It's not a direct translation from tax cuts = jobs. When businesses get a tax cut it all doesn't re-enter the economy. When the government takes in money it is spent (actually Bush spent an extra 500 billion this year). Which do you think will help the economy more 100% spending or something less.

      Granted simple economics and math elude most people but the "businesses create more jobs" bullshit is getting old. I guess you forgot that businesses hired people when Clinton was in office and taxes were supposedly high.

    7. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      Wrong. What people want is a free fucking ride.

      Stupid lazy people want everything for free but don't want to pay for it. Look at our country as an example. People are fat (don't want to moderate intake or exercise), people are lazy (notice how production actually increased once people started losing their jobs), and people will do anything to get something for nothing (Fear Factor).

      People are lazy, stupid and for the most part worthless. This is why the propaganda the Bush Administration sells. When he says one thing and does another, why doesn't anyone notice? (see first sentence).

    8. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by John+Courtland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where'd the 10K go then? Did you upgrade your machinery? Did you increase your productivity or did you bank it?

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    9. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the Achille's heel of Supply Siderism. You can't guarantee that people will spend. Plus, in a bad economy people are even less likely to spend.
      It's called being fiscally responsible.

    10. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by jasonditz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they were willing to pay a decent wage they wouldn't be running short on workers.

      Its not like most of the people here have any moral objection to being complicit in murder.

    11. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand - it just disappeared!

      I'm sure that it did something for the business, even if it was just passed back to the owner.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    12. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Tarwn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      errr...where did you get your figures?

      According to the Department of Treasury on their .gov website, the public debt was $4,692,749,910,013.32 10 years ago (09/30/1994).

      Looking at the yearly figures for public debt, it never experienced a drop during Clinton's administration, in fact over the term of his presidncy it increased by $2 trillion. Granted it has increased a little faster under Bush, at $1.4 trillion, but I am not seeing this magic 10 trillion surplus.

      Now, one possibility is that instead of paying down the debt with the surplus it was spent elsewhere with a little extra debt thrown in (in less than a year), but then, considering who was in office at the time, this would not be surprising nor would it be Bush's fault.

      Also, generally plural usage of a word denotes multiple occurences. Saying "running 1/2 trillion dollar deficits " with the implication that we have been running deficits of this size is only true if we round up, sometimes by quite a bit.

      Next: I was unaware that Bush has been in office for 10 years, and generally re-elections are for 4 years not 5.

      BTW have you ever noticed how all Bush does is pander to the stupid? Abortion, let's see, nothing has changed and they've had control for 3 full years. Ever wonder why? They are pandering to the stupid religious right. How about this gay marriage issue. What does the shmuck do? Proposes an amendment (which he knows will never get passed). More pandering. Every day I lose more confidence in the ability of the American citizens to make intelligent decisions about who governs this country.


      Heh. heh. Ok, so you are saying he has done nothing on these few points or has at most only played to the public eye, then you continue to basically blame American citizens for not making intelligent decisions, etc.

      So in essence, things aren't going your way and it is everyone elses fault? So sorry, next time we will all sit around and let you make our decisions for us, rather than try to think for ourselves...right after we stop looking up information from the source, like looking at the US treasury dept for public debt information.

      I'm not supporting the 1.4 trillion increase in public debt or the current president. I think there are more than enough real issues (backed by real numbers) to talk about without dreaming up new ones...
      --
      Whee signature.
    13. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by blincoln · · Score: 1

      The whole point is so that Americans have more disposible income to buy shit. Then the companies that get the money from the populace are able to hire more workers, and manufacture more goods, hence selling more goods, then hire more workers.

      I thought the 80s made it pretty obvious that this sort of scheme doesn't work.

      I earn a middle-class salary. The tax cut for me had so insignificant an impact on my paycheck that I didn't even notice it. My spending hasn't increased.

      The only people who I see getting a significantly larger amount of money are the rich - who already have enough money to buy pretty much anything they want, and are just going to put the rest in the bank.

      It's certainly not going to convince businesses to hire more Americans. Businesses are too concerned with cutting costs and outsourcing to foreign countries in order to maximize shareholder value. They are manufacturing and selling more goods, because the cost to them is cheaper, but the cycle of money is no longer a closed loop inside America - a lot of it is being drained off to China, India, etc.

      Back to the original topic - Why should I pay the price if the military is unwilling to give its technical people a decent salary? Why should the money that my employer has invested in my skills be basically stolen when I'm conscripted?

      It's totally ludicrous that people like me should be expected to put their lives on hold, their belongings in storage, and give up their home because the government isn't willing to provide proper incentives for employment in the military. If the country were threatened by a foreign power, e.g. Imperial Japan in WWII, I would have some sympathy, but it's not.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    14. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't the "surplus" a projection? After the bubble burst 2000-2001 wouldn't you expect the "surplus" to burst too?

    15. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by blincoln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget that the $27,000 is just your base bay. On top of that you either live on base for free(including electricity and water), or get a housing allowence which changes depending on where you are and your rank, and family. Plus health and dental on top of that.

      That's still not very good. If you add $27,000 to what I pay for housing/electricity/water, you get about what I was making as a help desk phone jockey when I started out in IT four years ago, with no degree.

      The military can probably get away with lower-than-industry pay for certain jobs that have a cool factor, like flying a fighter jet or driving a tank, but not for an IT position.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    16. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The whole point is so that Americans have more disposible income to buy shit.
      ...and no time to enjoy it.

      --
      What?
    17. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by lsdino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe he bought some imported goods with it. That'll help the economy, just not the US economy!

      We do have this massive trade deficit thing going on...

    18. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      You are correct... That was sorta my round about point. People just didn't spend it and the plan disintegrated.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    19. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite easy to roll out of military service with an inside track for providing services to government contracts or working for a government agency. I would estimate most salaries with clearances for a mid level professional to be at around 50-80k with a security clearance and a 4 year degree. The clearance means job security if you allow yourself to be attached at the hip to any location with a U.S. government facility... which actually affords an very long list of options to pick from.

      If you are actually enlisted in any branch of military service you make about 28k a year in cash and 40k with 'total value' benefits as the military loves to point out being a mid level professional with about 2-4 years of time.

      Officers make about 40k cash and around 60k 'total value' for mid level professional. However as an officer you would be lucky to actually touch a computer system. Most likely you will be managing people or money.

    20. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1


      It is also very common for businesses around a military base to give discounts to people with military IDs. This can frequently extend to police, firemen, and paramedics, too.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    21. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by NickRuisi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With a BS, you can get in as an officer, but I seem to recall that during AIT at Fort Gordon, GA, that 3 or 4 of the soldiers in the squad I led had BS's. Usually, with a degree, you can enter at more than a "buck private".. sometimes up to pay grade E4.

      That said, I also seem to remember my platoon leader (a very cute female 2nd lieutenant) bitching about how officers have to pay for a lot more than the enlisted folks. The get allowances, granted, but get less for free.

    22. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wage scale? That is standardized across services. Now it has been a good 10 years since I have seen that scale but I can assure you that it ain't much. If you are lucky a PFC is seeing about $500-600 a month. If you with a college degree are lucky enough to got to OCS and make it thru you might see about 2 grand a month. Your average Major or O-4 with about 10 years of service is or was making far less then 60k a year.

      now benefits are also standard. that includes medical dental optical. PX/BX priveledges, 30 days paid leave per year, and the gi loan for small business or farm purchase.

      As to where they end up... well that depends. I knew a guy with a masters that flunked OCS, that ended up a combat infantryman stationed on Okinawa. But he was a real fuck up so he got what he deserved.

    23. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "..omputer science and don't suck, you will get promoted very quickly."

      ha ha.
      And if there is a place in the next rank. Each rank is only allows X number of that rank, so I you are the best, you STILL wont be promoted.

      This was a huge problem in the eighties. Airmen could become sergents.

      Of course, if you piss of the wrong person, you wont get promoted when you should. So later it shows up on your record, which can make people think twice about a promotion, AND will limit your 'top' rank.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by geirhe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you have a bachelor's degree, then you should start out as an officer.

      Not if the US system is anything like the norwegian. To become an officer in Norway, you must take something that is best translated as "the school of war" - a three-year school. Don't ask me what they teach, I am not an officer.

      Norway has a drafted army. When I was drafted as a M.Sc. in electronics/computer science, I spent most of my time logging incoming mail. The next rank in the pecking order would be civilian employees, then the military ranks came on top of this. The amount of techological savvy went down as you progressed up the hierarchy.

      In a civilian company, this state of affairs would lead to bankruptcy. The military doesn't have any self-regulating controls of this kind to ensure that resources are utilized effectively - or utilized at all.

      I just can't see this happening. The military is based on a hierarchy, and it needs to be organized just this way to be effective during a war - you can't sit and hold hands and talk things out when someone are shooting at you. The only way to make a proper hierarchical model work is to have the most experienced people on top. I think it is impossible to have a marriage between a hierarchical system where it takes 15+ years to reach the top and disciplines where your skills are outdated in five years.

      I don't have a solution to this draft-related problem. I don't think a solution exists.

    25. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      As an ex-USAF aircrew (B-52 Electronic Warfare Officer), I can tell you you get paid EXTRA if on flight status. Likewise, airborne troops get extra pay for Jump status, etc. When I was a Second Lieutenant, I lived on base in 1-BR BOQ (Bachelor Officer's Quarters). 1 Room, shared kitchen with guy next door, and a bathroom. A step up from a College dorm, but not quite an apartment.

      I had to pay a monthly maid fee, and buy all of my own food. Also, officers have to buy all their own uniforms, if it's not specialty gear (like flightsuits, etc). You get access to the BX and Commissary, so your purchases on-base are tax free. And in most states, unless you're stationed in the state you're registered to vote in, you don't pay state taxes, so it's just Federal, Social inSecurity, and Medicare. . .

      And there are generally programs to get young officers cars at Fleet prices, especially for the Academy grads. Insurance is cheaper for officers as well, we just tend to be a lower-risk group overall. . .

      . . .and when **I** went in (1984), base pay for an O-1 was $13K and change. . .the extra $125 a month for Flight Pay was noticable, and after 8 years on flight orders, jumped to 4-500 bucks additional a month. . .

    26. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The military can probably get away with lower-than-industry pay for certain jobs that have a cool factor, like flying a fighter jet or driving a tank, but not for an IT position.
      Given the vast number of IT people underemployed and flipping burgers at your local $FAST_FOOD_CHAIN, one suspects you are incorrect.
    27. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      You might "start out as an officer" if you went through ROTC in school--but then you are apt to wind up as a platoon commander (average life expectancy in serious combat=about 3 femtoseconds). Technicians are, at best, Warrant Officers. You're more likely to wind up making corporal (after you graduate basic training).

      If they really need techs, what the military should do is hire more civilian contractors, and I do hope they go that route instead of drafting them. It's hard to coerce people into being smart. But then "smart" and "army" are two words that comprise an oxymoron when they occur in the same sentence. Believe me, I've been there.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    28. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Eil · · Score: 1


      Er, that's not quite enough. You also have to be a good officer which is a career all unto its own.

    29. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      What's this have to do with republicans?

      democrats pander to dumb people - just a different group of dumb people that make less money.

      Both steal all my money and give it to someone else.

      Why are you grand-standing that you're voting for socialist party A instead of socialist party B?

    30. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

      27,000 a year? First tier engineering college graduates average ~65,000 a year fresh out of college. These aren't numbers from during the bubble; they're from last year. I'd say that's a big difference.

    31. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by MCZapf · · Score: 1
      I can answer your question with respect to civilian jobs in the DoD. Yes, their desire for computer workers is reflected in the Special Rate Tables for Certain Information Technology Employees. You can compare these to the General Tables.

      Generally, starting salary is lower when working for Uncle Sam, but it goes up quickly.

      Here's my experience, which I think is typical. As freshly-minted bachellaureate in Computer Engineering in 2002, I went to work for the Army - as a civilian - at level GS-07 with a salary of $38,866 per year. This is low, but a series of automatic promotions will have me at GS-12 making $62,421 by the end of this year - 2.5 years after graduation. Plus, we generally get a pay raise every year, voted on by Congress. This year we got 4.1 percent (same as active duty military).

      It seems to me, though, that there is more opportunity for technical work with government contractors, rather than with the government itself. The government contracts out its technical work. (I'm not sure if this is a symptom or a cause of the perceived crumminess of government jobs.)

    32. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more then just that. I am in the Army right now. Even if the pay was twice as high I would want out just because you get treated like shit. You have to jump when they say jump. You have to push when they tell you to push. Oversleeping is a crime. God forbid you get sick, then you are a shit bag. The Army can take their money and shove it up their ass.

    33. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by $ASANY · · Score: 0
      Not quite.

      One of the requirements for getting a comission is that you have at least a Bachelor's, but having it in no way fully qualifies anyone to be an officer. My platoon of 11C's (indirect fire infantryman) had six bachelor's and two masters degrees, and only one officer. In the reserve component these days, you'll probably find about half of the NCO's have bachelors or masters degrees.

      If you have a degree in computer science, you are no more worthy for promotion than if you had a degree in tiddlywinks. I've never seen an OER or NCOER for that matter that specified your major. Promotion is based on training, performance, time-in-grade, PT scores and a couple of other merit-based standards. They are not given out on the basis of "you're a computer science major and you don't suck."

      You sound like the only time you've ever worn a uniform is for holloween.

    34. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Given the vast number of IT people underemployed and flipping burgers at your local $FAST_FOOD_CHAIN, one suspects you are incorrect.

      I keep hearing about these people, and yet for some reason everyone I know with real skills doesn't have trouble finding a job. Washington Mutual, in particular, seems to be happy to pay people *above* market rates.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    35. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its not like most of the people here have any moral objection to being complicit in murder.

      Neither do you if you live in the US and buy clothes.

      Or does your version of "complicit" not include supporting companies that support the murder of textile workers in third world countries who attempt to unionize?

    36. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they're this desperate for workers, is there desperation reflected in wage scales, benefits, etc?

      Of course not -- that logic applies only to those at the top. If you've observed recent corporate history, for all others, there's a race to the bottom. Want a top executive? Institute a search where unlimited funds must be made available to attract "the best talent." Want a grunt? Point to offshore wages and say, "There's your competition."

      When programming talent was scarce and you'd expect wages to go up, supply/demand was tossed into the shitcan and the solution was to uncap H1B visas.

    37. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they were willing to pay a decent wage they wouldn't be running short on workers.

      If they're so fucking smart, let them follow the example of business and outsource all the killing and dying to India and China.

    38. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's being complicit in murder too.

      Seriously though, not every clothing company on the planet does that. There are plenty of socially responsible textile companies on the planet... I can send you a list of some if you'd like... drop me an email, just drop the first dot in my URL and make it into an @

    39. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      My platoon of 11C's (indirect fire infantryman) had six bachelor's and two masters degrees, and only one officer.

      That is an endemic proplem in thought for much of the military. An enlistedman with a masters? I don't know what his degree was in, possibly something useless in the real world like philosophy, but if I have an M.S. in computer science, then I can be put to much better use than as a transportation device for an M-16. Although, judging from the recruiters that I have talked to, the only branch that seems to realize this is the Air Force.

      If you have a degree in computer science, you are no more worthy for promotion than if you had a degree in tiddlywinks ... Promotion is based on training, performance ... They are not given out on the basis of "you're a computer science major and you don't suck."

      You say promotion is based upon training right? An M.S. in computer science represents six years of in-depth training in a field that the military should (and does) find useful. You say performance too? That would be wher the "not sucking" part would come in. If you managed to get through any reputable university and get a decent degree, then you should be able to perform. If not then you shouldn't have gotten the degree in the first place. Some people manage to slip through of course, but then that is what evaluations are for, now isn't it?

      You sound like the only time you've ever worn a uniform is for holloween.

      And the boy scouts too!

    40. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      I know several people that went in and on top of their ~$30k a year starting salary, Air Force in Navy in the cases I know about, also paid off their near $50k - 80k in college loans too.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    41. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by $ASANY · · Score: 1
      That enlisted man with a masters had a degree in mathematics and worked at Defense Mapping Agency for his "real job". He was really an invaluable resource since all the maps we used were made by guys like him, and he could define a lot of minutae that was particularlay useful for mortar fire direction computations. He was a whiz at field surveys, and that made him even more valuable to us. No need to call him useless, or simply a "transportation device for an M-16". He's a fine man, and I'm proud to have served with him.


      Training in some academic discipline is not absolutely relevant to military service, and it's particularly irrelevant where leadership skills are concerned. Technical skills are fairly easily acquired anywhere, but real leadership ability is a real scarce commodity. That's what promotions are all about -- leadership training, and demonstrated leadership capabilities. I've spent a lot of time in the military with graduates of Georgetown, University of Maryland, UVA and VT, and while I'll readily admit they were pretty smart, they didn't have any greater predisposition for leadership than a high-school dropout. Sometimes quite a bit less, in fact.


      I'm just telling you what I've seen and what I've learned, and I can tell you that a degree doesn't make you an officer, and an officer with a degree isn't automatically someone who will be a good officer. Some will be, and some won't. Some enlisted men for various reasons had degrees and had no interest in getting a comission. I was enlisted and never got offered a comission because of it my degree, but still managed to get promoted up to E-6.


      In a military role, a BA/BS degree says you've had the good fortune and tenaciousness to get a degree, which is imporant and does count, but it's not the only ticket punch you need to get anywhere.

    42. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1
      That enlisted man with a masters had a degree in mathematics and worked at Defense Mapping Agency for his "real job". He was really an invaluable resource since ... and that made him even more valuable to us.

      The Guard might be different, I was talking about active duty really. From what I have gathered, it is basically assumed that you will make it through OCS if you managed to make it though a university.

      No need to call him useless, or simply a "transportation device for an M-16". He's a fine man, and I'm proud to have served with him.

      I didn't call him useless, nor infantry in general. There are a lot of people with useless degrees out there. My bachelors is in mathematics too, so I obviously don't think it is one of the useless ones.

      As for infantry, you need lots of guys running around with M-16's (or mortars in your case, and various other basic unit types) to really get anything done during a war, no matter what super-weapons you have up your sleeves. That is an unfortunate reality of warfare. With his specialized knowledge from his normal job though, he probably could have been put to better use.

      Training in some academic discipline is not absolutely relevant to military service,

      That depends on what discipline. For example, I have taken courses in cryptography: that is very relevant to the right parts of the military.

      and it's particularly irrelevant where leadership skills are concerned ... but real leadership ability is a real scarce commodity. That's what promotions are all about -- leadership training, and demonstrated leadership capabilities. I've spent a lot of time in the military with graduates of ... and while I'll readily admit they were pretty smart, they didn't have any greater predisposition for leadership than a high-school dropout. Sometimes quite a bit less, in fact.

      I'll definitely have to agree with you there. Personal skills in general are often lacking with the average engineering/comp. sci. type, much less leadership skills. It just isn't something that is focused on much in the education, and the people who go into those fields often aren't the most sociable to begin with. Perhaps it should be more of an issue in the education.

    43. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps people with very strong skills other than leadership should also be rewarded for making them available. Many employers figured this out a decade ago and separated management and technical career tracks.

    44. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      So in essence, things aren't going your way and it is everyone elses fault?


      Well, yeah. That's democracy, if I'm not mistaken. Say I like duct-taping the beaks of swans shut and tossing them off buildings? I'm in the minority, so it's illegal. I can get arrested for doing things I find fun and entertaining. Things aren't going my way, and it is indeed everyone else's fault, because they voted for the last asshole, and they're going to vote for the next one.

      This doesn't mean I can't do things my way -- it just means I have to play the game of being a criminal in some cases, and merely being a social outcast in others. It virtually guarantees in many cases that I cannot be afforded the same rights as one of the majority. While I firmly believe that there is no 'normal', that everybody is an individual, etc., most of those individuals believe they are part of a teeming throng of The Righteous Folk, for whatever reason. They want to be part of the in-crowd. I just want them to go the hell away, because I want my privacy and my life. I don't want to go kill people because the asshole that got elected this time decided it was a good idea.
      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    45. Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      If you have a degree in computer science and don't suck, you will get promoted very quickly.

      No smartass comment, too easy. Don't ask...

  13. Oh, great.... by BWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, great. This is going to be worse than the ASFAB test I took in my first undergraduate year. Before my eyes lost their 20/17 rating, I planned to fly for the Marine Corps, but I had dudes from a number of government agencies aside from the armed services calling my apartment and dropping by both home and work.

    So, it is stuff like this that is going to make anonymity much more important than it is now. The problem of course is that unless you are completely disenfranchised from society your academic records are known, any published writing you have is known, your credit rating is known (believe it or not, certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you), and "virtual" persona are relatively easy to correlate with specific persons (all of you anonymous cowards take note). And all you folks that think: "Well, my Ph.D. or M.D. is going to keep me out of the draft", take note. If you are under the age of 45, we are prime candidates.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Oh, great.... by normiep · · Score: 1
      "Well, my Ph.D. or M.D. is going to keep me out of the draft",


      You're right it won't, but the high blood preasure associated with those degrees will.

      --

      -- Point? None! Cob.

    2. Re:Oh, great.... by Uggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just to put a little moderating spin on this whole discussion (not necessarily you) - We seem to have this "us" vs. "them" mentality. The government _is_ "us". If we see "us" as "them" and disengage then it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we engage "them", become involved, vote, write letters, campaign, hold public office, serve in the armed forces, etc. then the government becomes "us." Isn't that how it works?

      I think perhaps we've swung a little too far into paranoia because so few Americans currently serve in the armed forces. I am a captain in the army reserves, and I get the strangest questions from people who have NO idea what being in the military is like. This wasn't true during my parent's generation.

      What I'm saying is this: if we want war and an uncertain future, the best way to achieve this is to not serve, to not care, and to put the power to control such decisions in an increasingly smaller and smaller circle of "good ol' boys."

      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.

      Now, first things first, we need to get a new fire captain soon... he keeps saying to us, can of gasoline in hand, that, "I'll have some work for you guys in a sec."

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    3. Re:Oh, great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you even took the test...anyone who has knows it is the asVab, not the asFab.

      It stands for "Armed Services VOCATIONAL Aptitude Battery".

    4. Re:Oh, great.... by froody · · Score: 1

      The problem of course is that unless you are completely disenfranchised from society your academic records are known, any published writing you have is known, your credit rating is known (believe it or not, certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you), and "virtual" persona are relatively easy to correlate with specific persons (all of you anonymous cowards take note).

      So you're saying I should make sure that everybody knows I was at several of the anti-war demonstrations last year?

      Tim

    5. Re:Oh, great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      your credit rating is known (believe it or not, certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you)


      As someone who has been through that process, a credit check is required for any position that requires a security clearance. The reasons are two fold, one it shows that you are responsible and two you are not under any financial burden that you could easily be recruited by foriegn nationals to divulge secrets in exchange for cash.

      -AC
    6. Re:Oh, great.... by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you)

      They don't want people who are easily bribed or blackmailed. If a person has $15,000 in credit card debt and high-risk loans, then they are more easily wooed by foreign agents looking to buy info. Drug addicts would fall into a similar category.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    7. Re:Oh, great.... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The government _is_ "us". If we see "us" as "them" and disengage then it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we engage "them", become involved, vote, write letters, campaign, hold public office, serve in the armed forces, etc. then the government becomes "us." Isn't that how it works?

      Close. I'd say that "the government begins to approximate 'us'".

      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.

      This is an absolutely beautiful quote. Is it from somewhere in particular?

    8. Re:Oh, great.... by Uggy · · Score: 1

      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.

      Nope, that's an Uggy slashdot original. Thanks for the comment. Feel free to use it, 'cause it's true.

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    9. Re:Oh, great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a pretty good quote, but it breaks down a little if you consider the number of arsonists who are also firefighters...

    10. Re:Oh, great.... by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      If you are under the age of 45, we are prime candidates.

      Cool. I missed the end of the last draft by being a few months too young to register, now I'll miss the next draft by being too old.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    11. Re:Oh, great.... by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      Just to put a little moderating spin on this whole discussion (not necessarily you) - We seem to have this "us" vs. "them" mentality. The government _is_ "us".
      Only true if your vote counts. I live in Texas and I voted against Bush (I couldn't find anyone to vote *for* mind you). However, due to the insanity we call the Electoral College my vote was promptly tossed into the trash can. I'm all for abolishing that bizarre 18th century anachronism, but if we can't abolish the EC, can we at least require that all states split their Electoral Votes? That way my vote might actually count for something. A Bush supporter in New York or California is in the same situation. Honestly, I don't know why I bother voting in presidental elections, it *literally* does not make any difference.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    12. Re:Oh, great.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.
      Yep. Back in the 80's I had my finger 'on the button' onboard a SSBN. Lot's folks, within and without service, were convinced we were just slavering to use it.

      They couldn't be farther from the truth. Our mindset was that if the birds flew we had failed.

      Now, first things first, we need to get a new fire captain soon... he keeps saying to us, can of gasoline in hand, that, "I'll have some work for you guys in a sec."
      Folks that believe that is true, need to get off their asses and vote. Protests don't do it, ranting websites and Usenet posts don't do it, only feet in polling booths.

      Me, I'm still hoping for a 'none of the above' ballot box. Mostly my votes have been 'against' rather than for. Pretty much the same this time around...

    13. Re:Oh, great.... by Kohath · · Score: 1
      The government _is_ "us".

      See, the problem is that there are lots of people around who think it's OK to cause harm to their neighbors in order to get what they want.

      Envy is the new populism. Hate is the new civic-mindedness. Fear is the new pragmatism. Lust has replaced liberty and the truth is seen as quaint and restrictive.

      There's definitely an "us" and a "them". The problem is that the new social government is really only useful to "them" because the rest of "us" grew up, discovered reality, and learned to take care of ourselves. We don't want to take our neighbors' earnings, and we'd really like more choice in what happens to our own.

      When you have nothing in common with people, they really can't be "us", can they? Can people who'll gladly harm you for their own benefit really be "us"? I don't see how.

    14. Re:Oh, great.... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.
      That's a good point, there was a lot of military advice to stay out of Iraq, but if you did have to go bring in enough people to stop the looting etc.

      I suspect that with each succesive election in the USA more canditates will be elected on their military record, which is not necessarily a bad thing. An old wrestler may have visions of Iraqi women throwing rose petals onto tanks as the troops roll bloodlessly into Bagdad, but someone who will listen to the advice of his subordinates would have other ideas.

      I can not see any sensible person with a military background using his first action as president to give billions to terrorists in exchange for US hostages, later taking some of it back to sell them weapons and trying to balance it out by giving the other side weapons.

    15. Re:Oh, great.... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      If you are under the age of 45, we are prime candidates.

      So does that mean if all you young punks get killed, us old farts can get jobs again!?!? Don't get your knickers in a knot - I'm kidding... They'd probably just raise the H1-B visa cap again "due to lack of qualified workers" or outsorce the positions, anyway.

      --
      That is all.
    16. Re:Oh, great.... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Unless you made a shitload of money off of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, then no, you are not part of "them" aka the government.

      --
      [o]_O
    17. Re:Oh, great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The government _is_ "us".

      You fucking, bug-brained moronic dipshit, how can you believe that civics class tripe? The government is the corporations who buy out whatever politicians you elect. The government is Halliburton and Bush's oil cronies who sat down and wrote our national energy policy for their bought and paid for Congress to rubbersatmp.

      Do you ever stop to wonder why the Bushies demand "transparency" and "accountability" for others while refusing to make public meetings between energy executives and enrgy policymakers, or why he is only grudgingly talking about more cooperation with the 9/11 fact-finding committee?

    18. Re:Oh, great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.

      Your analogy is incorrect. I know several firefighters and they all are pyromaniacs. They love to set practice fires and burn things down.

    19. Re:Oh, great.... by Sanction · · Score: 1

      I guess the main problem is that, in this economy, very few of us have enough money to influence the government in any meaningful way. You can write all the letters you want, but with the exception of a handful of office holders, it won't get much notice without a check attached.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    20. Re:Oh, great.... by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      i don't recall any corporations handing me money for my vote.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    21. Re:Oh, great.... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this AC is largely correct. I've done a small amount of fire training, and the guy leading the session was spraying kerosene like some Tim Allen "More POWER!!!" disciple.

      But on the other hand, if you ever get to use a Monitor Gun to fight a fire at a chemical plant, it's one hell of a cool toy.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    22. Re:Oh, great.... by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      I do my best to read an entire post even if I'm turned off by one of the first statements. Much of what you say here is fair, logical, and levelheaded.

      Except, IMHO, this:
      The government _is_ "us".


      The government is as much me as I am the government, and I cannot explain in this limited space how much I am not the government.

      If you believe that the best thing to do is join the system and somehow "make it better", that's very noble, and I commend you for taking the high road. I operate under different principles. I don't like the idea that there is a large, unintelligent mass of people elected on the basis of good hair that determine my future to some degree -- but it is reality. I'm not going to get a better haircut and run for mayor simply because I dislike the mayor. I dislike garbage too, but I don't get in a garbage bag and hope that I'll smell better. I throw it the hell away -- I don't roll around in the stuff.

      You have to assume the government has a good aim, something that it would be worth having the government do, etc., and then you can join and do that. I don't want to control people's lives, even if it helps them somehow, because that's not what I'm supposed to do, I have no children. I don't want to have a political persona to have to put on like a shit-suit whenever I walk out of my home. I dislike "making pretty", and I don't like lying in public. I'm 100% unqualified to join "them".

      And yes, it's "us" and "them". I showed up at public school because the alternative was a crime. It's essentially illegal to have a job and raise a kid at the same time, so my parents chose to eat and send the kid to Government Day Care. I signed on for Selective Service because I live in an oppressive government that will gladly jail me if I don't. If I get drafted, it will still be 'us' and 'them', because I'm being forced by law into doing something. If my literal choice is prison or military service, sadly, I'll probably pick killing people. At least I'll have the tiny freedom of who to shoot first, or the option of suicide by the enemy. (Actually, this sounds better now -- find a nice place where some news organization is filming live, run up to the camera and state that I'm committing suicide because I've been drafted, and then run off to get slaughtered. Should make an excellent sound bite. Might cause a few others to do the same, and at the very least I've made "them" waste training. Small consolation.)

      Call it stupid -- fine. I agree. It is stupid that my life would be wasted, but it's also a choice. Don't know about you, but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    23. Re:Oh, great.... by zifferent · · Score: 1

      Envy is the new populism.
      That goes hand-in-hand with the Greed and Avarice of the rich. Mostly, it depends on which side of the fence your standing on. Frankly, I believe, nobody starve and nobody should be homeless, and everyone should have access to an education. The democratic government's role is to take care of its citizens.

      Consider that, simple economics states that it is unhealthy if not impossible over the long run for an economy to have full employment.

      As a government:
      What do you do with those unemployed?
      Is it fair to let them starve and die?
      What about orphans, widows or the disabled?
      Maybe, we could go back to the 19th century and put children to work in dangerous sweatshops, and once you lose arm or leg it was pretty much a life pan-handling or slow starvation death.

      The truth is that government welfare, spurs on the economy and taxes on corporations makes for stronger corporations.

      The lie that Americans have bought hook, line and sinker is that welfare reciepients are lazy and sit at home and watch daytime telivision all day, and while some of these people do exist, the truth is that the average welfare reciepient is on welfare for an average of only three years, and is ashamed of being on welfare.

      And honestly the lazy fat-asses would still be lazy-fatasses without government assistance, they would just be hungry lazy-fatasses. You can't legislate them out of existence.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    24. Re:Oh, great.... by zifferent · · Score: 1

      There were lazy people before the invention of welfare, its removal would change nothing in that respect. Its removal would only insure to punish those honestly seeking employment. It's almost impossible to find a good paying job when your holding down two other jobs to feed your family.

      Finally, the funny thing about "us" is it's inclusive until you use it in conjunction with the word "them", and "them" are always a negative group of people you don't want to be included in.

      You assume you have nothing in common with "them" until you lose your job in a bad economy, and then you have everthing in common. Including the self-righteous hatred of the rich.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
  14. RTFA by way2trivial · · Score: 0

    some of the 'special skills' are translator..

    where do you think some of them work?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he did RTFA. That's why he mentioned language skills.

      UYFB (Use Your Fine Brain).

  15. This reminds me... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me that I need to vote and participate in the democratic process.

    I am going into a computer engineering major at UMBC. I was approached by recruiters, and they wanted me to do ROTC. I didn't want to, because if I was going to a good college, I wasn't going to negate the benefits by being stuck in the military for 5 years afterwards. Now again, this could potentially ruin my plans for after school. I will have to vote for a candidate who will try to keep us out of any major wars that would require a draft.

    Disclaimer: I am from a military family, I have nothing against the military, but I personnally don't want to join.

    1. Re:This reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would want Al Gore, then.

      Back when the Chinese government forced that US Survellence plane down, if Algore had been president we would have simply airlifted over all the documentation for the plane to China, to 'ensure better interoperability' or some sort of wonky shit.

      He's your guy.

    2. Re:This reminds me... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I will have to vote for a candidate who will try to keep us out of any major wars that would require a draft.

      That sounds great in theory, but the big problem is how to know who really would try to keep us out of a war. Even Bush seemed pretty anti-war before he got into office. So it might be better to vote for a canidate who's actually against the draft, but again, I don't think either canidate would dare to take a stance on that issue.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    3. Re:This reminds me... by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      I am going into a computer engineering major at UMBC. I was approached by recruiters, and they wanted me to do ROTC. I didn't want to, because if I was going to a good college, I wasn't going to negate the benefits by being stuck in the military for 5 years afterwards.

      U
      Made a
      Bad
      Choice

      is a 'good college'?

      *ducks*

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  16. Count me in ! by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't wait to design Access databases for the government. Just hope there isn't too much data, else my listboxes might be hard to scroll.

    1. Re:Count me in ! by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the other services, but the Air Force has a service-wide licence agreement with Oracle for database systems. No Access for me! :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  17. Will.. by barenaked · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will they be outsourcing this draft to india as well?

  18. Nothing new... by amigoro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has been going on in Israel for decades. As a result, Isreal has produced some of the best computer programmer's in the world. Most of the developers end up in VERY high paying jobs once they are released from military duty.

    Of course, if you don't like the draft, you could always migrate to India India.

    --


    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:Nothing new... by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Informative
      This has been going on in Israel for decades. As a result, Isreal has produced some of the best computer programmer's in the world.

      Same in China too. Creation of strong and glorious brotherhood came about, and now all people live equally according to skills. There are grave problems here and there, but all things being equal is a better way to manage.

      Don't get me wrong, the US should NOT become like China. Strong states is very good, but free and strong states is one million times as good as the lame Chinese system.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    2. Re:Nothing new... by amigoro · · Score: 2, Informative
      I am not arguing for the system. I myself am a pacifist, and I would never let US use my skills for violent purposes.

      At the same time, if the country is in grave danger, say for example she's being invaded, I would gladly volunteer.

      If I have to dodge the draft, I will escape to Thailand, India or Mars

      --


      Nothing to see here
  19. Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible? Pretty damn typical of Slashdotters - demand everything, give nothing, and complain about it.

    1. Re:Freedom comes at a price by JayPee · · Score: 1

      Fuck that.. I pay my taxes. That's payment enough for what they're "giving" me.

    2. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to a government by the people, for the people?

      i.e. the principles outlined in our Declaration oof Independence and Constitution.

    3. Re:Freedom comes at a price by ylikone · · Score: 0

      WTF? Freedom to help kill iraqies?

      --
      Meh.
    4. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      I'm giving the government (which is an entity profoundly alienated from my country) more than enough as it is (and I need to get around to documenting it sometime in the next thirty-three days).

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    5. Re:Freedom comes at a price by dancingmad · · Score: 2, Funny

      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the website that makes your way of life possible? Pretty damn typical of anti-Slashdot comments on Slashdot - demand everything, give nothing, and complain about it.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    6. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will not pick up a weapon and kill another human being simply because my government has decided to classify them as the "enemy" (which most often occurs for more political than humanitarian reasons) at the moment. I find that the idea that other people believe that I'm somehow obligated to murder people in service of my government to be disturbing.

    7. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      Huh? My way of life is made possible by things that are paid for by taxes. My way of life is made possible by laws drafted and passed by people I voted for. My way of life is not made possible by attacking countries that are of no threat to us.

    8. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Alan+Cox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You too can fight and die for .. the DMCA, 70 year copyright extensions, the RIAA, the MPAA, 1$ a gallon gas and the right to pollute the world... 8)

    9. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah..there's a well thought out insightful post.

      Why don't you try posting something even more one sided and simplistic?

      Oh, wait...you can't.

    10. Re:Freedom comes at a price by barakn · · Score: 1

      Freedom comes at a price. giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible 30% of my income isn't enough? Voting isn't enough? Jury duty isn't enough? And what way of life are you talking about? HIgh energy consumption and environmental pollution? Is that why we should fight in this oil war?

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    11. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      That's much of the point, this is Slashdot. I think a lot of us aren't thrilled with our socio-economic status. When your job is about to be outsourced, you spent years at college honing your skills only to worry about having to work under a 16 year old at a fast food outlet, and your best romantic option is a realdoll, diseased hooker who could land you in jail or a 400lb woman... Putting ones life on the line to show gratitude for a life like that might not be on the top of a lot of people's lists. And hell, what if, God forbid, the person in question was gay or liked to smoke a joint every now and again. The former is having legislation worked on to officially deny them the rights of everyone else, and the latter have an offcial war being run against them. Neither should be expected to be overjoyed at fighting for a country that's activley fighting against them.

    12. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the nature of opinions are that they are one-sided. Am I supposed to agree with both sides of an issue before I can enter a debate?

    13. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why don't you try posting something even more one sided and simplistic?

      And both Mr. A. Cowards differ, how?

    14. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      I do. I work for a defense contractor. So in a way, I'm already working for the Department of Defense.

      Get over it. Show your loyalty to the US by joining up. Pretty damn typical of EVERYONE. Bitch about others, but do nothing yourself. It's like rich people asking me to give money to their pet cause. "do as I say, not as I do..." Bull.

      How THIS coward got modded insightful is BEYOND me.

      Moron.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    15. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      How about 1/3rd of my paycheck? Or are you saying that I'm obligated to put my life on the line to support that bastard in the whitehouse?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:Freedom comes at a price by blincoln · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      Being forced to join the military isn't "giving something back," it is having something taken from you.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    17. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      You know what? What if the country actually went back and made possible the way of life it was built on?
      Every so often, it IS about what your country can do for you: if it doesn't deliver on it's promises, it's time for change.
      And I'd say that it's time for America to do something about educating it's people, providing jobs to it's inhabitants and living in peace. 'Cos we all know that the US gov't has only been waging war, and has done NOTHING to 'attack' the root causes of terrorism...like reduce poverty, not meddling with souvereign state's affairs or even picking the right targets [remember, 15 of the 911 terrorists where saudi...and many more people are killed by smoking, fattening foods, guns etc etc etc, singly or combined, than terrorism].

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    18. Re:Freedom comes at a price by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 1

      $1 a gallon? I want to know where you're buying. ("Regular" was $1.77/gal here in Rochester, NY last time I checked.)

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    19. Re:Freedom comes at a price by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible

      I am the country -- I and 300 million other Americans. The country is not some capricious god that we dump offerings on.

      When you can clearly demonstrate to me how blowing up chunks of Iraq has significantly benefitted We The People, then I'll happily join up.

      A draft takes place when people don't care about something enough to want to risk dying for it, but do want to force someone else (who feels the same way) to do something about it. Since there are a number of ways of avoiding the draft, and since money and political influence played a role in avoiding Vietnam, I would say that a draft is a stunningly divisive and politically unsound way of achieving that goal.

      If there were a horde of Bush's stereotypical black-swathed turban-wearning terrorists mowing down innocent people outside my front door, would I shoot back and risk my life? I'd at least give it serious consideration. That's a cause that's worth fighting for. Attacking a bunch of Iraqis for political goals that are at best extremely unclear and perhaps poorly chosen, and at worst downright corrupt and evil is not something that I am interested in dying for. Frankly, given a choice between firing a shot at either Ashcroft or a random Iraqi citizen, I can tell you right now who I'd be aiming at.

      While I don't want to be drafted to fight in Iraq, also I don't feel that anyone else should be drafted to fight there. As a matter of fact, I feel very strongly that we should not be involved in Iraq at all. I think that US actions in Iraq have caused political and social repercussions that hurt the United States more than help it. So, no. I would not be "fighting for the the country", I would be fighting against it.

    20. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 1

      While I don't like any of those things, I don't think fighting for a world dominated by a programmer elite where any end-user or HCI person who expresses grievances with the usability of the FOSS software forced upon them is covertly "silenced" is hardly an improvement.

      I'd rather have a happy medium that doesn't suck.

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    21. Re:Freedom comes at a price by kwandar · · Score: 1

      Being Canadian, my view is somewhat slanted, but ....

      ... but I can't think of any war/insurrection that the US has been involved in, in my lifetime, where the US or its way of life were threatened? Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Chile, Granada, Panama, Gulf War, Iraq, and probably many others I've missed.

      The only possible exception was Afghanistan, and I'm not certain even in that case

      I'd defend my country in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean I would go to war elsewhere, and IMHO I don't see how that involves giving anything back to your country

    22. Re:Freedom comes at a price by borgasm · · Score: 1

      Amen brother....

    23. Re:Freedom comes at a price by boomka · · Score: 1
      Um, if someone forces me to do something (in this case go and serve in the army) I no longer have freedom.
      So essentially my country is taking my freedom when I am conscipted.

      So maybe instead of shouting slogans you don't understand you should pick up a rifle or two at your friendly local K-Mart and go to war with your governement because it is the real enemy threating your freedom and that enemy is much more likely to succeed in taking your freedom away than some bearded terrorist in Asia.

      --
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
      H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
    24. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I dunno.

      I think it is a two way street.

      It is pretty well established now that at the time of Gulf War II that Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the US, but Iraq was doing everything it could for over a decade to drag and stop inspections, so there was no reason to know this. Now that we're in, I think it would be unethical to just yank back out without replacing its government.

      I know the US has done some terrible crap, but the blame can be sprinkled around like manure.

      I do find it interesting that no one really seems to give a damn about the oppressed, how many people had Saddam killed? It is always someone else's problem. Europe pretty much didn't give a damn about the genocides happening in the Balkans. Ditto for Africa, which Europe was responsible for fucking over Africa several times over during the colonizations. The Arab world generally didn't like Saddam, but didn't do jack to stop what he was doing, sometimes even defending his right to be a murderous despot who has killed maybe over a hundred times more people than Gulf War II did.

    25. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The world is *much* bigger and more complex than your digital-only existence. Sorry.

      Stick to what you're good at - writing good code for my enjoyment - and shut the hell up about everything else. You're not even qualified to form an opinion.

    26. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      $1.77 is still less than half that of most other industrialized countries, although I expect some of that is because the US government doesn't tax it as much and possibly even subsidizes it. The cost of fuel goes up much less than inflation.

      Somehow, I'd expect that people would treat energy with more respect if its cost had followed inflation.

    27. Re:Freedom comes at a price by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?

      There would be nothing wrong with that idea if we didn't have an administration so bent on forcing everyone to live the administration's way of life.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    28. Re:Freedom comes at a price by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe we would have less 11 mpg H2s on the road.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    29. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      And how exactly does killing peoiple in Iraq make my way of life possible?

    30. Re:Freedom comes at a price by jafac · · Score: 1

      Gee, you think they're going to "Draft" Software Licenses to save money?
      Or are they going to keep throwing (borrowed) money at Microsoft, so they end up skimping on real warfighting equipment?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    31. Re:Freedom comes at a price by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Frankly, given a choice between firing a shot at either Ashcroft or a random Iraqi citizen, I can tell you right now who I'd be aiming at.

      Yeah, Ashcroft *is* pretty bad - even his own pancreas is trying to kill him...

      --
      That is all.
    32. Re:Freedom comes at a price by k_head · · Score: 1

      Bah. We are all fighting for the right to turn our daughters into britney spears and christina aguilera lookalikes.

      Freedom means your daugters get to look like prostitues.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    33. Re:Freedom comes at a price by zenthax · · Score: 1

      giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible

      Why is it when some one opposes a draft they are refusing to give back to their country. Yes we are typical slashdoters because we not willing to be haearded blindly. I am perfectly willing to join and so would everyone else, if he military is willing to comprimise. The fact is being in the military is just another job. They military has almost offered no reason for me to join. The pay is in the low end and i have no respect for martial law.

    34. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      If a nation is incapable of mustering enough volunteers to protect itself, that nation may not deserve to stand.

      --
      [o]_O
    35. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Not to disagree w/ you or anything, but remember what happened to that Kuro5hin guy? Be careful who you express negative fantasies about...

      --
      [o]_O
    36. Re:Freedom comes at a price by fermion · · Score: 1
      I think many are willing to die to protect freedom. When we oppose the Patriot act, we are saying that the we are not willing to die by a terrorist attack rather than allow the government to have unfettered access to our lives. When we oppose laws that require us to carry identification at all times, we are saying that we value our freedom to move as we please more than our life. Many will often oppose laws that decrease the chances of death in an effort to protect these freedoms for thier children.

      OTOH, many in government have shown conclusively that theyd do not vlaue the laws. They will value thier own lives, and own financial well being, over the freedoms that have become our birthright. These are the people that will sell military equipment to questionable parties, and then, like the cowards they are, hide behind technicalities.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    37. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible? Pretty damn typical of Slashdotters - demand everything, give nothing, and complain about it.

      You forgot saying "Fuck you in the face" to simple-minded shitballs like you. There happens to be a vast difference between "giving something back" and being forced to put your life on the line so some rich, cock-eating Republican fatcats can gorge themselves at your expense,then vomit and gorge more.

    38. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Miara · · Score: 1

      Freedom means they get to look like whatever they want. And that's a good thing.

    39. Re:Freedom comes at a price by k_head · · Score: 1

      Really? Is that your definition of good? Doing whatever you want? What's your religion satanism? I believe the main idea behind satanism is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It sounds like that's your philosopy. You must be a satanist.

      Unlike you most people get their ideas of good and evil from their church or spiritual leader. For them good is not defined as "doing whatever you want" or "looking like what ever you want".

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    40. Re:Freedom comes at a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "An (if) it harm none, do what ye will" comes from the Wiccan Rede. Your Will is what you know deep down to be right and holy, not every fleeting whim. The Rede also cautions that any malicious actions will afflict you threefold.

      More people should understand good and evil by thinking about them, not blindly hoping that whoever they're talking to is telling them the truth.

    41. Re:Freedom comes at a price by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      Yes, down with freedom, as long as it means more conservative clothing for females between 6 and 18!

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
  20. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the hippies better be happy someone was willing to fight for their freedom, or they'd still be living under British rule, or worse.

  21. I'm going to write on my MSc.. by IainMH · · Score: 1

    change it to an MCSE. They should leave me alone then.

  22. A much better idea by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just offer large enlistment bonuses and perhaps raise the age limits? I'll bet there are a lot of 40-something geeks who'd be willing to sign up. It would also be a lot easier politically than restarting the draft, and probably get better results: volunteers tend to do better work than draftees.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:A much better idea by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Because then there will be no money left over for big fat contracts for contractors with connections.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:A much better idea by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not just offer large enlistment bonuses and perhaps raise the age limits? I'll bet there are a lot of 40-something geeks who'd be willing to sign up.

      Uh, you got an extra $900,000,000 sitting around?

      The military already employs major numbers of "40-something geeks", or "Defense Contractors", as they prefer to be called. Those guys work for Northrop and Lockheed designing UAVs and JSFs and are highly compensated. They're no more likely to volunteer for the military than any random US citizen is to mail the IRS an extra $30,000 to help out the war effort.

    3. Re:A much better idea by thanester · · Score: 1

      This article isn't about creating a large staff of continually employed computer specialists and linguists. That would be a continuous drain on finances. They're talking about what to do if they need large numbers of people in a crisis situation.

      Not that I like the idea of it.

    4. Re:A much better idea by jareds · · Score: 1

      Uh, you got an extra $900,000,000 sitting around?

      No, but the DOD should be able to dig that out from under its figurative couch cushions.

    5. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That IS a much better idea. As an active duty USAF NCO I completely agree with you.

    6. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just open source it and let everyone work on it :P

  23. wow by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Funny
    did you ever read a 2 line post- and miss half of it- at the same time you were telling someone else to read?

    note to kids at home- don't post on slashdot while you are on the phone
    (sorry)

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  24. Contingency plan? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't make too much sense to me.

    In the past 10 years, computer specialists in the military were offered large retention bonuses to stay in the military and reenlist. Now those bonuses aren't to be seen. I know from experience.

    So why isn't the military trying harder to retain these already military trained computer specialists but supposedly drawing up a draft? Something doesn't jive here.

    1. Re:Contingency plan? by prat393 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, from a cost/benefit analysis, it makes perfect sense. Why pay more to keep them there when you can just send them to jail if they quit?

    2. Re:Contingency plan? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The military isn't really behind this plan as much as the Selective Service is. What, would you expect the Selective Service to ever submit a proposal that says they should be disolved because they don't have a point anymore?

    3. Re:Contingency plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would this be modded flamebait? It may or may not be true, but there is a lot of sense to it. I was under the impression that constructive critisism of government policy was necessary, not something that should incite a flame war.

    4. Re:Contingency plan? by globalar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make an excellent point, but I don't think that this initiative is targeted for right now or even anytime soon. It is true that the military probably needs more technical staff, but this is not a measure to deal with the peace-time problem. Rather I believe this planned policy is simply a response to the realization that if technical staff are needed in peace time, more and better educated staff may be needed in war-time.

      "officials at the Selective Service System...stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is likely far off."

      "A targeted registration and draft is "is strictly in the planning stage," said Flahavan, adding that "the whole thing is driven by what appears to be the more pressing and relevant need today"

      So this is planning. As with most planning, you realize what could happen when you look at your current situation.

      The timeframe this plan is working with will probably outlive you and the current generation of leadership (if successful). It targets the need to get qualified people as needed in draft situations. You can't afford to keep everyone you may ever need employed in all technical areas, all the time. The idea is foresight - if the current technical base is not enough (or not educated/specializing) in the right thing or the situation requires incredible resources in a short amount of time (wars may be different), there is policy in place to manage the need.

      I think this is completely seperate policy from the current need for technical staff. True, keeping technical staff could affect this policy's implementation, but it still is effective to have the policy in place (regardless of the condition of existing technical staff). This proposed plan seems to answer both possible situations (if the military does keep qualified individuals or if it does not). That's probably why it is being considered - it gives options to the military. A war and draft could easily change the situation.

    5. Re:Contingency plan? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      That's why I mentioned "Contingency" as the title of my post.

    6. Re:Contingency plan? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      No, because one you get highly trained personnel in the military that hvae been there a while, know the systems we use, can PT, etc, etc, youw ant to keep them in.
      Vietnam proved what happen when you get and keep people in the military that don't want to be there.

    7. Re:Contingency plan? by prat393 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I was being deliberately tongue-in-cheek and fairly cynical, because I do indeed recognize the flaws inherent to a draft-based army. Also, have you ever thought about the rather deeper flaws in every organized military on the planet? It's the same in every government, and in most forms of social interaction. The problem is this: communication is only possible between equals. When talking to a superior, you naturally tend to tell them what they want to hear, even if you only deviate slightly from reality to "make it more palatable," etc. Those in command, therefore, are never fully informed about the situation they're supposed to be taking care of. The military simply codifies these relationships and makes it even harder to break out of them.

    8. Re:Contingency plan? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Have you been in the military? Any good leader HAS to go off of his suboordinates. I don't remember telling my superiors only what they want to hear. That would be fatal in a combat situation
      What most civilians don't realize is that there is no easy generalization for the military. The military is basically a microcosm of the civilian world as far as attitudes, leadership styles, etc. You have some leaders that listen, some that don't, and some that let you run the show. Just like the civilian world.
      The Marine Corps constantly preaches that the small unit leader (junior NCO usually) makes the msot important decisions.

    9. Re:Contingency plan? by ek_adam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they don't need them to reenlist. In December they stopped the scheduled discharges and arbitrarily extended terms of service for many servicemen.

  25. i already pay my taxes... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...i will not use my computing/programming skills to help the US subvert anyone.

    At the risk of sounding unpatriotic **gasp**, they can take this, shove it and come find me in Canada.

    *sigh* Mod me down for speaking ill of the US Gov if you like, they are your points.

    1. Re:i already pay my taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they'll send you right back. You can't flee to Canada (or anywhere else except maybe Cuba or North Korea) anymore.

      Anyway, you'd probably be shot for cowardice, you unmitigated chickenshit traitor!

    2. Re:i already pay my taxes... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "... You can't flee to Canada (or anywhere else except maybe Cuba or North Korea) anymore..."

      **chokes on drink in astonishment of your stupidty**

      You mean you can't flee *anywhere*? Son, sit down and tell you whom you should tell that too: the millions of illegals in THIS country.

      Mama never said you AC's were very bright.

  26. real deal on selective service bill by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    there are twin bills in the house and senate in order to conscript for active duty, rerserve military, and homeland security civilian jobs. Male and female. 18-26. Manidtory 2 years.
    I forgot the bill numbers. My little sister did a paper on it for her highschool government class. I'll stake my life and reputation that it's true, though. The bills have been in the works since early in 2003 and the schedual is to bring them into effect in 2005.

    1. Re:real deal on selective service bill by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The article gives an update as to where they stand right now. In the House, the bill is unlikely to be considered as it lacks support. In the Senate, only Slashdot foe Fritz Hollings has agreed to sponsor the bill.

      So, this is really dead legislation walking.

    2. Re:real deal on selective service bill by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're there because antiwar Democarats are trying to drum up public sentiment against Bush in any way possible.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    3. Re:real deal on selective service bill by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      The only thing i have against Bush is the PATRIOT Act. And honestly, I'd be more affraid of Reno running around with that than Ashcroft... Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian... and all that withing "acceptable" laws...
      I'd rather die that have a democrat in charge. But I won't vote Republican either.

    4. Re:real deal on selective service bill by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Shit...anyone here seen Starship Troopers?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:real deal on selective service bill by replicant108 · · Score: 2, Informative

      $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

      The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is 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.

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article 51 46.htm

      Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "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.


      US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005

    6. Re:real deal on selective service bill by Erbo · · Score: 1
      ...anyone here seen Starship Troopers?

      "Join the Mobile (Computer) Infantry today! Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?"

      /yes, I know the movie's nothing like the book

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    7. Re:real deal on selective service bill by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being off topic, but out of curiosity...what do you think should have been done in the Elian case?

    8. Re:real deal on selective service bill by sanctimonius+hypocrt · · Score: 1

      I think you're exactly right. The only reasons the democrats are pushing this idea is to spread FUD; If it passed, they'd immediately demand it be repealed.


    9. Re:real deal on selective service bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative?!? Where is the information?

      This is a new low for the moderators. I can now say something inflamitory about a group of people and be moderated as informative?

      Pathetic.

      NR

    10. Re:real deal on selective service bill by k_head · · Score: 1

      Why are people that pro war against the draft? That makes no sense. If war is great then the draft must also be great.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    11. Re:real deal on selective service bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're new here, aren't you?

    12. Re:real deal on selective service bill by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      I've got news for you: public sentiment fled when the WMDs turned out to be mythical.

    13. Re:real deal on selective service bill by jadel · · Score: 1

      Volunteers generally make better soldiers being typically more highly motivated, longer serving and thus more highly trained than conscripts - who typically just want to get their period of enlistment over.
      There also appears to be an element of point scoring, with attempts to portray the Iraq war as a new Vietnam, this conscription bill - which is sponsored by a Democrat senator - seems to be another attempt to scare people that there sons and daughters will be coming home in pine boxes.

    14. Re:real deal on selective service bill by k_head · · Score: 1

      But the sons and daughters ARE coming home in pine boxes. Just because the media stopped reporting the deaths of US soldiers that does not mean they stopped dying.

      I think it's shameful the way this country and the media are not even acknowledging the soldiers who give their lives in the line of duty. The president hasn't even attended one funeral.

      BTW all bills in congres must be introduced by members of both parties. When you say that the bill is "sponsered by a democrat senator" you are lying by telling only half the truth. There is also a republican sponsor.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    15. Re:real deal on selective service bill by jadel · · Score: 1
      But the sons and daughters ARE coming home in pine boxes. Just because the media stopped reporting the deaths of US soldiers that does not mean they stopped dying.
      The number of coalition deaths have dropped significantly, with only twenty dying in Febuary, down from a high of one hundred and ten last November. This together with the recent Ashura massacres seem to imply a change in tactics, away from attacking troops and instead hitting "soft" targets in an attempt to destabilize the country as much as possible.
      BTW all bills in congres must be introduced by members of both parties. When you say that the bill is "sponsered by a democrat senator" you are lying by telling only half the truth. There is also a republican sponsor.
      The bill summary for S.89 says:
      Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors: (none)
      I'd post a direct link, but I don't know if it would work. Instead go to:
      http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_thr ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
      type in s89 in the search by number field, and then when the bill comes up click Bill status and summary.
  27. Choices by stuffduff · · Score: 1
    I guess they will go for the previously enlisted for management, draft age kids for their general IQ as trainable specalists and they they will fill in gaps by selecting individuals with specific qualities (black/hat) that they need.

    Remember that while each service has basic training, every Marine has a second mo as a rifleman. Semper Fi!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    1. Re:Choices by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      Remember that while each service has basic training, every Marine has a second mo as a rifleman. Semper Fi!

      Exactly why I've decided to join the Air Force. Six weeks and the easiest basic training.

    2. Re:Choices by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      But exactly why I went Marine Corps for my first service. Hardest service means the most effective cure for laziness. And the instant friendship with other Marines is somethign you have to experience to believe.

      On the other hand, I'm working on getting some medical issues dealt with so I can go Air Guard for my third service(Army Guard was my second, didn't like it much.).

      One of these days I'll come up with a reason to join the Navy and complete the set.

    3. Re:Choices by stuffduff · · Score: 1

      Good Luck Airman Sharitt!

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    4. Re:Choices by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      The Marine midset and mentallity was never quite for me. Since I was going in to the techincal training and experance, the Navy and Air Force were my two options and I don't like ships.

  28. Draft is not unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is no Constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and woman. The ERA didn't pass. There are still acceptable areas where men and women are different and may be treated differently. Women and men still go to seperate prisons, for example.

    1. Re:Draft is not unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      equal rights are constitutional, but not spelled out specifically.

      Any sort of "draft" is unconstitutional and against human rights, simply because it's one of the forms of slavery. Slavery *is* specifically unconstitutional.

  29. actually by NSupremo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Microsoft will be a safe haven for people wanting to dodge the draft.

    Only an administration as inept as the current one would be so ignorant as to choose Microsoft employees for this endeavor.

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
    1. Re:actually by Cynikal · · Score: 1

      just tell them youre a MSCSE (microsoft certified security expert)

      at best they'll send you to work for the enemy

  30. If you read the article by IainMH · · Score: 1

    it just says 'just in case'. Frankly I'm suprised they didn't have this in place since the 80s.

  31. Skript Kiddies.. by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    ...how do they determine who has "computer skills"? And is this really feasible? How will they make someone work for them? How will they even know if a computer programmer is a computer programmer? Do they have some kind of national database of them?

    They could always draft those skript kiddies, who want to show off their leet skilzs

    They are likely even the right age.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Skript Kiddies.. by Nadsat · · Score: 1

      And the l33+ will put back orifices into the homeland defense systesm...

      And yes, finally, every young hacker heart's dream will come true: The movie WarGames finally becomes a reality tv show.

    2. Re:Skript Kiddies.. by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 1

      They could always draft those skript kiddies, who want to show off their leet skilzs

      They are likely even the right age.

      What? You have to be 18 to join the military. By the time most scr1pt k1dd13z turn 18, Bush will be out of office -- even if he's reelected.

  32. If it's not freely given, it's not giving. by way2trivial · · Score: 0

    if the choice is participation or jail- it's no longer 'free'

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  33. How About Trying Recruiting First? by Vagary · · Score: 1

    My friends and I (all mono-lingual CS degree holders) have all speculated about joining the military since graduation, but it just doesn't have much of a draw these days.

    All the ads are about learning basic skills and putting yourself through college -- what about officer recruiting? Don't they realise they're better off getting people who already have the skills?

    And I get the distinct impression reading /. that all the interesting stuff in the military has been outsourced a decade ago, so what exactly is it that we'd be doing there? They should be competing with MBA programs, not private sector jobs, because it sounds like there isn't that much hands-on work to be done.

    Of course I'm talking about the Canadian military here. I imagine a draft would be pretty much required after watching how the US military has been using the cannon fodder they had so far. :)

    1. Re:How About Trying Recruiting First? by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Officers are a different breed. There generally is n't much call to advertise for officers as there never really a shortage of people who are looking to stand up for those jobs. In some way its the first mini-test, are you capable enough to research what you need to do to become an officer. The information is out there, you just need to show the initiative. They generally don't want people working for them that are not self starters.

    2. Re:How About Trying Recruiting First? by Vagary · · Score: 1

      At least up here in the Canadian military, pretty much all the software developers are officers and all the operators are grunts. So what is it that this draft is going to be gathering -- officers or grunts? Because if it's grunts, then maybe most of /. has nothing to worry about.

    3. Re:How About Trying Recruiting First? by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      In the US military both of those tasks are in the enlisted ranks (though increasingly the programming task is outsourced to civilian personnel). Officers are meant to be the leaders, not the do-ers. Officers are there to manage the personnel and to to understand enough of the tasks that their subordinates are doing to sucessfully achieve that task. If an American wants to program in the US Military, they will generally have to aim for the enlisted ranks. As with most things there may be exceptions, but this is the general rule for US forces.

    4. Re:How About Trying Recruiting First? by Vagary · · Score: 1

      TTYT, I don't really know about the Canadian military either -- they do just as poor a job at advertising what recruits actually do. I just figured that if Bachelor's degree holders are automatically 2nd Lieutenants, then 2nd Lt must do some programming because surely they'd want to get at least a bit of work out of CompSci grads? Similarly, Professors at the Royal Military College are Majors, even if they don't have any subordinates.

    5. Re:How About Trying Recruiting First? by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      In the US its not automatic. As a matter of fact, if a college grad walked into most recruiting offices here in the states the officer angle would not be mentioned (the only thing that they would mention is that you would enter in at an advanced rank (in the Army, and E-4, in most of the others E-2 or 3 (not quite sure on them, since my main focus area is the Army), which are advanced enlisted, but not NCO ranks). Only with careful prodding will the topic of OCS (which for a college grad is the only (except for certain specialties, like medicine and religion) way in). Most of the officers come from other pipelines, such as the Academies and from ROTC (doing stuff while in college, and often getting a scholorship, and joing as an officer on graduation). And even if you have a CS degree there is no reason that you will be branched to a group that deals with computers (for example, in the Army the group that deals with computers falls under the Signal branch, and when you attend signals school you get the full range of training, from computers, laying telephone lines, radio communications, encryption, etc). And they may just decide that the need more grunts (or MI, MP, Supply). They call that the "needs of the army". You get some say by indicating where you prefer, but they can place you anywhere there is a need. And that means there are people who studied English or PolSci or Art taking the signals course. For the armed services a degree is generally (always exceptions, but this is the main rule) just a check mark to allow you into the Officer Corps, and what you got it in really doesn't matter as much as that you got it from an accredited university and had a relatively good GPA. An officer is there to lead, and it doesn't matter too much what your background is, as they will train you with enough information to be able to lead those soldiers (sailors, etc) effectively. It actually makes a lot of sense, as good leaders can generally lead most any group with a little training in the field they are in (which makes more sense than what some corporations do, which is either bring in business people without training them in the field, or promoting techies based on their salary or time with the company without regard to their leadership skills.)

  34. ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha to all you selective service suckers... As of this year, I'm too old for the draft.

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. All right you little maggots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Drop and give me twenty shell scripts!

    1. Re:All right you little maggots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Drop and give me twenty shell scripts!"

      "You call that a Makefile?!"

    2. Re:All right you little maggots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Drop and give me twenty shell scripts!"

      "You call that a Makefile?!"

      "All I see here are a bunch of script-kiddie wannabe's whose idea of a dependency is eating Pop Tarts bought at the Safeway by their mother!!

      "Now I wanna see you pukes give me a static pattern rule with conditional execution under the recursion I'm seeing because your pointy heads are up your asses!!"

    3. Re:All right you little maggots! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "Now I wanna see you pukes give me a static pattern rule with conditional execution under the recursion I'm seeing because your pointy heads are up your asses!!"

      Sir! Which pulldown menu is that form in? Sir!

      What's the idea, maggot, of putting me in a BLOCKQUOTE? What are you implying, you geek wannabe?
  37. Re:How about this. by CokeBear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The British all have health care, decent education, and they gave us the Beatles. Maybe its not so bad?

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
  38. Method already in place by tedshultz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the military want to get a bunch of computer specialists, they can just hire them. Drafts are usually only used to acquire cannon fodder because the people who get drafted are often the unrepresented class. It hardly seams fair to pay one CS student's way thought college with ROTC, and then hijack another grad's career without proper compensation.

    1. Re:Method already in place by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      If the military were to hire computer specialists, they would have to pay them the going rate. Considering the potential hazards inherent in operating near combat zones or in countries where Americans are profoundly disliked and where accommodations are of lesser quality than even the average geek's pad, the required incentive might be considerably more than the going rate. It's much cheaper to draft geeks and pay them whatever a buck private gets these days.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    2. Re:Method already in place by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      But if they wanted to actually pay them a competitive wage they'd have to raise taxes, and that just wouldn't sit well with the ric... I mean vot... I mean middle class.

      Better to piss off a few people who weren't going to support you anyway than to piss off a lot of people who might.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    3. Re:Method already in place by discogravy · · Score: 1
      what does fairness have to do with it? drafting someone[1] is a lot cheaper than paying someone[2].

      [1] "here's your gun, that's your terminal, btw, try to hack into iraq by next week cos that's where we're going to be and if you don't like it, let me introduce you to jail"

      [2] "I want to hire you. To go someplace unpleasant and do something complicated. For a long time, I'm not sure how long. Wow, that's a lot of money."

  39. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by DarkFencer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't spill my secret plan to the world!

  40. slashdotters are safe, at least by dankney · · Score: 2, Funny

    No worries about slashdotters getting drafted. We'd still have to pass the physical ...

    1. Re:slashdotters are safe, at least by Flashbck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only if they wanted to put us on the front lines. I'm sure they'll let us fat, pale skinned, caffine addicts sit in front of a computer ad play war games all day.

      Actually, if I could play Call of Duty for the gov, I'd do it. Hmmmm... a little Ender's Game anyone?

  41. Ready for any contingency by _Sambo · · Score: 1

    The US Military has huge books on procedure that essentially amount to: What to do if...
    Everything from revolt in the US to if a toilet is backed up in the Officers' quarters.

    This is an a suprisingly astute forward thinking move to plan for the possible needs of the Military in the future. But only as far as the technical skills go.

    I graduated with a major in slavic language arts five months after 9/11. I wanted to apply with the CIA, but all they wanted were Turkic language skills. (The (Insert Previous Soviet Republic Here)-stan countries were the hot spot for US intell at the time.

  42. Quite the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your creation grants you the freedom. The government's power comes from the people. The people make the government's way of life possible. How can you 'give' when said 'giving' is legislated and mandatory. You can't be free if you are legislated slaves to the state. The draft destroys your ability to 'give' to the state. That's called volunteering. A true form of giving.

    1. Re:Quite the opposite by Jayfar · · Score: 1

      Not at all. You're totally free to go and enlist before they get around to drafting you %-)

  43. Equal Oppertunity! by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'.

    Would this include women?

    Years ago in high school, a female friend once angrily declared the draft "sucked". I looked her straight in the face and said "What do you care?" "Huh?" "You' can't be drafted, only men can be." This was apparently a major revelation, and shockingly, the draft was forgotten about almost immediately.

    Main theories I've heard are that a)"our nation's daughters" coming home in body bags during a war would be political suicide, and b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men". Oh, then there's c)"women would use their feminine wiles to distract the men busy fighting!"

    Ever notice how feminists just really aren't torn up about any of that, even though most of it is deeply sexist? Also notice how Jessica Lynch was supposedly(according to the Army) beaten, raped, tortured, etc- when all evidence(and her own comments, before she developed permanent amnesia of events) point to all her injuries coming from the car accident she was in, and that Iraqi doctors took exemplary care of her? It's like the Army was saying "look, this is why you don't want women in the military! They're brave but helpless, and can get RAPED! Isn't she cute? She could be YOUR daughter!"

    1. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by LostCluster · · Score: 2

      The male-only status of the draft is essentially still here because: A. It has the inertia of being the status-quo and B. The feminist movement isn't sure what to make of it, so nobody's asking for a change and C. The draft is an inactive system that is highly likely to never be called upon again, so this is likely to be a moot issue.

    2. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      this is likely to be a moot issue.

      I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word.

    3. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word.

      Went to a california public school, did you? Do you sometimes bang on the wrong side of the keyboard? I suspect your alleged intelligence is somewhat moot.

    4. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Main Entry: moot
      Function: adjective
      1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
      2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

    5. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by EnglishTim · · Score: 1


      > > this is likely to be a moot issue.

      > I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word


      Oh, perfect!

    6. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Sarvatt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word.

      Moot:

      1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
      2. 1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
      2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

    7. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by IainMH · · Score: 1

      >>> this is likely to be a moot issue.

      >> I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word

      >Oh, perfect!

      Cannon fodder?

    8. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      It should include women. Women sign up for the military now, and go into combat positions (pilots, and so forth.)

      If women don't want the consequences that go along with "playing war", they shouldn't have bitched so much to be "included."

      Israel doesn't discriminate based on gender. ALL citizens have military service.

      It's time for the ladies to reap what they have sown. Sorry. You asked for it. Now roll with the consequences of being "just as good as a man."

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    9. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by MoggyMania · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Ever notice how feminists just really aren't torn up about any of that, even though most of it is deeply sexist?"

      By many standards (not all) I would consider myself a feminist. (I'm actually an "equalist" but most people don't grasp that there's any leeway between traditional and feminist views.) Anyway, *I'm* annoyed by the sexist rationale behind not drafting females; perhaps they should be assigned to posts reflecting physical ability, but that should apply to both genders and they shouldn't be auto-exempt.

      Then again, even though I'm personally a very aggressive person, I'm also against forcing *either* gender to participate in killing anything, so it's somewhat of a moot point.

    10. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
      Isn't she cute?

      Actually, no.

    11. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by DragoonAK · · Score: 1

      Main theories I've heard are that a)"our nation's daughters" coming home in body bags during a war would be political suicide, and b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men". Oh, then there's c)"women would use their feminine wiles to distract the men busy fighting!"

      How about d) loosing women does far more damage to the population of a nation than a loss of an equivalent amount of men. Men don't have children, so they're far more expendable in a demographic sense. This may be enforced by societal norms, but there's a reason for those norms.

      Hell, the only reason we don't have a sex ratio that greatly favors women is that evolution would then favor anyone who had a greater than average X/Y sperm ratio until the average reached near equilibrium. If genes weren't selfish that way, humanity would have a much greater birth rate.

    12. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by certsoft · · Score: 1
      a)"our nation's daughters" coming home in body bags during a war would be political suicide,

      The bush regime has solved that problem by keeping those images off of TV screens.

    13. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have never heard B and C stated by any serious papers or military person.
      A is true. The president who is in office when time puts on there cover a picture of stacked dead women might as well close up shop.

      There were many women who knew perfectly well they couldn't be drafted, and fought to have it stopped anyways. One twit doesn't speak for all activists.

      as for C, women can e distracting, but not becasie of there 'wiles' but because men are programmed to think of there nads first. In stress situations, it is ot un common to have a desire to couple, as it were.

      Now, Imagine what would happen the first time a pregnant military person was killed.

      as far as I remember, the reports that her injuries were sustained in the car crash only came from one source, whose credibility was question able.

      Now, Instead of wasting effort trying to get the other half of the population killed in the front lines, why don't you spend some time trying to help prevent the half that has to go to war from dying?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also notice how Jessica Lynch was supposedly(according to the Army)

      Ever notice that Private Lynch has a rank and no one ever seems to honor her as a member of the Army by using it?

    15. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Any woman who was drafted who wanted out could get out... very quickly and easily.

      All she'd have to do is find some sucker, effectively rape the young man and get herself knocked up.

      And what are they gonna do??? Keep a pregnant woman in the service? Abort the child against her will?

      Women won't be subject to the compulsary draft because they have the biological ability to dodge it if they so desire.

    16. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by TekGoNos · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've read the official rapport of the german military on gender. This rapport was published in 1999 to prepare the officers for the arrival of women into the combat units after an European Supreme Court decision.

      This rapport was mainly based on studies made by the american military. Their conclusions :

      The best amount of woman in a group is between 20% and 50%. Too few women actually DO distract men which will somewhat dispute over them. More women make the situation "normal" enough to stop this behavior. Too much women somewhat seams to lower the efficiency of the group though.

      While a little weaker, women have more stamina than man which makes up for the lack of strength.

      I think there were some more stats on the differences, but I have forgotten them since. Particulary, there was a section on menstruation and related problems that I dont remember in detail.

      The rapport goes on on practical problems like :

      There is generally only one shower room in german barracks, so some timeshift policy has to be applied.

      When doing a surprise inspection of the dorms, a male officier has to knock first and wait a bit before entering a women's dorm. (What's the point of a surprise inspection if you have the time to hide the booze first? (j/k))

      The personal should be instructed to drop their dirty jokes (Ha, I'd like to know if this ever worked, it IS the military, after all).

      And so on. There was also an section on relationships between soldiers. While relations with subordinates where forbidden, I do no longer remember the rules for relationships on the same level.

      It also cited some common fears, beside distraction, there was also :

      The fear that women act hysterical in critical combat situations. Empirical evidence however, does not support that.

      Another fear would be that men act overly protective of women, trying to keep them out of harm and engage in foolish rescue missions that they would never have done for a male comrade.
      This seams to be more of a problem, but can be fixed with proper training.
      Sidenote : I would take it with a grain of salt, as this is based on american studies and the american army is known to engage in foolish rescue missions anyway, as is it a political succes and a moral boost for the troup if you rescue any soldier (male or female) from the ennemy, even if half of the rescue team dies.

      And that's what I remember from this rapport.

      Disclaimer : As I wrote this from memory and read it five years ago, there might be some factual errors in my post.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
    17. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Anyway, *I'm* annoyed by the sexist rationale behind not drafting females; perhaps they should be assigned to posts reflecting physical ability,
      Something close to this was done in the Navy during the 1980's. (Females assigned to shore billets, since they could not go to sea.) The result was, and is, massive morale problems. Shore billets had traditionally been a break between sea tours, and a the better billets used as rewards for top performers on their sea tours. Instructor billets were filled by men with operational experience so they could pass that experience on. Maintenace billets were filled with men with operational experience... (For a lot of what the Navy does, experience matters as much, if more, than formal training.)

      Then suddenly... A large percentage of the shore billets went to women, and instead of rotating sea-shore-sea-shore, many men found themselves rotating sea-sea-shore-sea-sea. The 'reward' billets that had gone to top performers now went to women without any particular outstanding experience or performance. Schools that were taught by men who had gone to sea and returned to pass on that experience were now taught by women who didn't have operational experience. Shore maintenance billets that had been filled by guys with experience operating and maintaining the equipment at sea were now filled by women with nothing but book learning...

      The result has been a massive morale and readiness problem. A problem the Navy is only just now finding ways to overcome.

    18. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But women aren't in ARMY combat positions. As you say, they are pilots, not infantry. Since the draft is only to funnel personnel into the Army, women are still excluded. The military has justified this to the courts on the basis that the draft would be used mainly to fill combat positions, and hence women would not be elligible anyway. However, if they keep up with this "special skills" idea, the courts may reverse that.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    19. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Men don't have children, so they're far more expendable in a demographic sense.

      Huh? The notion of high birth rates as a national goal went out of fashion after WWII. Even if it hadn't, our society does not pracice polygyny, so additional women would be unmarried and have a low birth rate (not zero, obviously, but significantly lower than the married women).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    20. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rapport Relationship, especially one of mutual trust or emotional affinity.

      report An account presented usually in detail. A formal account of the proceedings or transactions of a group.

    21. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Someone should copy this and stick it up as an argument against affirmation action: here's what happens when you fill positions based on [gender|race|etc] rather than qualifications..

    22. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men"

      er..isn't that true? In general, women AREN'T as strong as men. Obviously there are exceptions, but you would expect the average man to be stronger than the average woman.

    23. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a little weaker, women have more stamina than man which makes up for the lack of strength.

      Which is why women routinely beat men in marathons.

      Oh....wait...

    24. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by DragoonAK · · Score: 1

      Hmm. It's not like it's a plot or something, and it's less relevant in modern American society. The attitudes still carry over from earlier times. I mean, we do allow women to enter combat positions. There are other reasons, but I felt this was likely a factor, and so threw it out.

      The US also doesn't push a high birth rate because it already has a very high birth rate for a 1st world country - 2.0, which when combined with immigration decently surpasses the replacement rate. Japan and many European countries are shrinking, and it's going to do some interesting things to their economies.

    25. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by menscher · · Score: 1
      Biologically, it makes more sense to kill men than women. It only takes one (very lucky) guy to impregnate a hundred women a year. You can repopulate your country that way. Doesn't work so well the other way around.

      Personally, though, I'm all for drafting women. Anything that can lower my own chances of being sent off to die.

    26. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      that wasn't my point. I know what the Draft fills up. What I'm saying is women are already in combat positions (a fighter pilot is a combat position...they got that waived a few years ago so women could be fighter pilots.)

      My point is, if they're doing that...the daughters can pick up a gun and stand next to my drafted son. Simple. They asked for it. Now they should reap what they sow. "Playing war" isn't the same as real war. Women need to learn this, in order to know the full price of equality. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    27. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but in an emergency this might be needed. An unlikely emergency, but if it ever happend those survivors would wish strongly that it was a goal up until it was needed. Because we don't know when/if the worst case will be reached, we need to act as if we believe it really will happen just in case. Well, at least as far as practical, when discussing worst cases you always need to balance the effect on your life, some things are not worth the other costs they bring.

    28. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Emergency? What the hell kind of emergency are we talking about here? A conventional war that was large scale enough to wipe out the majority of military personnel, but which took place entirely outside of America (because if the war is on American soil, the fact that the women are civilians won't keep them from taking casualties)? I'm sorry, but I can't even conceive of any scenario that would fit what you are talking about.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    29. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Huh? The notion of high birth rates as a national goal went out of fashion after WWII. Even if it hadn't, our society does not pracice polygyny, so additional women would be unmarried and have a low birth rate (not zero, obviously, but significantly lower than the married women).

      Ah, you're forgetting about the Mormons. Imagine the United States repopulated with lots of little Darl McBrides.

    30. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by goliard · · Score: 1
      Ever notice how feminists just really aren't torn up about any of that, even though most of it is deeply sexist?
      While I can speak for no one but myself, I, sir, am a feminist and a woman, and I am pissed off about all three of those things, and have been for a long time. Furthermore, I consider the draft to be the appalling institutionalization of a sexist attitude against men: the attitude that young men are more expendable than young women, that men's lives are worth less than women's lives. For the record.
      --
      -*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
    31. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by rark · · Score: 1

      In fairness, most of the political feminists I have met (a lot, and I'm one of them) are entirely against the draft. So this omission has to do with not supporting the draft in principal, not with wanting special privileges for women. A bit like why a gay rights activist wouldn't advocate beatings for straight people.

      I think we could clean this up very nicely by passing the ERA. Women would be eligible to be drafted, so no more red herring arguments about feminists and the draft. Better, since those who pick wars seem to be largely of the sort of mindset that would make sending one's son off to die heroic but sending one's daughter off to die tragic (I was going to say sexist, but I'd like to avoid the appearance of name calling), I'm all for using their prejudices against them. If the prospect of sending their daughters (or even their constituents' daughters) to war causes them to pause more than just sending their sons to war, then this would be a good thing. We've forgotten the meaning of a defensive military. The day mexico or canada invades, I'd enlist myself (except that the military doesn't want me, period) but that isn't looking particularly likely.

      Hmm. How long before the department of homeland security picks me up for not being patriotic?

    32. Re:Equal Oppertunity! by bluGill · · Score: 1

      A large scale war that called up not just everyone of normal "war going" age, but also everyone who we could get to hold a gun. And think civil war, where it is on home turf, people are willing to fight. In general Americans are not willing to take out women. In my original post I all but said this is an extremely unlikely situation, so that is seems like a stretch shouldn't surprise you, it is intended to be an extreme and unlikely situation.

  44. Closed captioned for the politically impared by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam," Flahavan said. "But they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft."

    The Selective Service, as it exists now, will never be called upon again according to experts. Therefore, it risks being totally deleted from the budget. Only if they can sell Congress on a modified plan do the bureaucrats keep their jobs, so of course the bureaucrats have written a modifed plan and are trying to sell it.

    However, Congress doesn't seem to be buying.

  45. This is Dubya's revenge by craXORjack · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...for all those jokes we made about him on Slashdot!

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re: This is Dubya's revenge by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > ...for all those jokes we made about him on Slashdot!

      Maybe he's just trying to get us to join the Air National Guard.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: This is Dubya's revenge by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      Maybe he's just trying to get us to join the Air National Guard.

      I can handle that. Collect a check and never show up. Mission accomplished!

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    3. Re:This is Dubya's revenge by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, watch out, you little punks - I've got a beowulf cluster of tanks, *and* I have a lower Slashdot ID than 3/4 of you! Yeeee- haw....

      Sincerely,
      George H.W. Bush
      President of the United States

  46. I knew it! by GeekZilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I always suspected it. I am a member of the US Naval Reserve and about two years ago, the NAVRES asked all of it's members to fill out a "skills profile". This profile would be used to solicit qualified members and ask them to volunteer to fill temporary billets as they arose. The program was presented as a way to find the best service member for the task and to offer them the oppurtunity to take orders for that job. A lot of the billets that open up are from 6 weeks to 9 months.
    I was always dubious of doing this, becuase if there were ever a "crisis" and they REALLY needed someone with my skills, I foresaw the "volunteer oppurtunity" becoming an "involuntary recall to active duty" in a heartbeat.
    I doubt this decision is directly related, but now they have a massive database of skills that they can search through and draft from first.

    --
    Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    1. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you signed up for a branch of the military, even the reserves, you should be prepared to fight.

      I know it stinks that you can't join the reserves and mooch off some of that government money, but too bad.

    2. Re:I knew it! by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting, except they HAVE your records of what they have trained you to do.
      They have access to what you do in the real world.

      How to stay off the front lines.
      Top ten list of skills:
      10) Astronaut
      9) Super-Model Judge
      8) Gay Porn Actor
      7) Al-Quada oppertive
      6) Ashcroft's 'Love monkey'
      5) Keeper of the 'Bush snorts coke' picture archive.
      4) Howard stern fan..no wait that would ba how TO get to the front lines.
      3) Nipple piercer(work recently shown my Janet Jackson)
      2) Slashdot troll
      1) Cowboy Neal!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:I knew it! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I was always dubious of doing this, becuase if there were ever a "crisis" and they REALLY needed someone with my skills, I foresaw the "volunteer oppurtunity" becoming an "involuntary recall to active duty" in a heartbeat.
      Well, that's what the reserves are *for* in the first place.
    4. Re:I knew it! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      As a member of the US military, past or present you have always been subject to recall.

    5. Re:I knew it! by rizzo · · Score: 1


      How to stay off the front lines.
      Top ten list of skills:
      10) Astronaut
      9) Super-Model Judge
      8) Gay Porn Actor
      7) Al-Quada oppertive
      6) Ashcroft's 'Love monkey'
      5) Keeper of the 'Bush snorts coke' picture archive.
      4) Howard stern fan..no wait that would ba how TO get to the front lines.
      3) Nipple piercer(work recently shown my Janet Jackson)
      2) Slashdot troll
      1) Cowboy Neal!


      Aren't 1, 4, 6, and 8 the same thing?

      --

      "More organs means more human." - Zim

    6. Re:I knew it! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      10) Astronaut

      Umm...there's a very, very strong correlation between "astronaut" and "military pilot". I doubt that being an astronaut is sucha great idea.

      7) Al-Quada oppertive

      Now *that* would be fun to present to the draft board. "Uh, sir, I don't think I can fight. No, I'm not a conscientious objector -- I'm an al-Queda operative."

    7. Re:I knew it! by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

      Sorry-let me be more clear: These are my CIVILIAN skills.

      --
      Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    8. Re:I knew it! by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

      After 7 years active and 3 years (and counting) reserves (with one 12-month involuntary recall and still in the reserves), I don't think you can describe me as 'mooching'. Prepared to fight? Always. Look forward to it? Happy to be leaving my wife and 2 children for extended periods of time? No. Still will do it if called upon? Yes. Still dislike them having ONE MORE REASON to pick me? Yep. And in this case, my skills as an IT professional are some skills that the Navy needs a lot of. Being an IT professional just makes it that much more likely that I will be called up MORE OFTEN and for LONGER PERIODS than other people.
      If I wanted that, I would have stayed ACTIVE DUTY.

      --
      Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    9. Re:I knew it! by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know it's too bad that you can't just join the reserves and sit on your fat butt and mooch off the government. Is that why you never joined? Again, I've got over 10 years of service under my belt. How about you?

      --
      Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
  47. Consensious objector status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I only use and operate free software. I could not in good conscious work with proprietary commercial solutions because of the very real harm they do to others. Would I have to qualify for consentious objector status?

    1. Re:Consensious objector status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you have to be able to properly spell "conscientious" in order to do that. You dumb fucker.

  48. It seems to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that W has a more than slight resemblance to a certain cartoon villain from the Warner Brothers pantheon. This is probably some sort of bizarre master plan that'll connect up with all of the gack hiding beneath the innocuous seeming bills currently in legislation. It'll fall into place after the upcoming election and all of a sudden every American who can read will find herself churning out ACME-type gadgets to get that wascawy tewwowist menace once and for all.

  49. An idea! by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Since we're sending so much IT to India let's draft the Indians to do compulsory IT....Like my momma always told me, everything has its responsibilities.

  50. Yeah by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    Yehaa! A job, with the government to boot. It can't be outsourced either! Is this how dubya plans on resolving mass unemployment in the tech sector?

    1. Re:Yeah by tuxette · · Score: 1
      It can't be outsourced either!

      I wouldn't bet the farm on that one! :-P

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  51. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    All the hippies better be happy someone was willing to fight for their freedom, or they'd still be living under British rule, or worse.
    All the chickenhawks better be happy there were people willing to fight for their freedom too. Indeed, they'd better be happy the British were willing to bail them out after Pearl Harbor, otherwise they'd all be speaking Japanese...
  52. 20 to 44? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a wider age gap then allowed for the general draft?

    What is next, just draft the entire country, for their entire life? Shades of Orwell...

    Not that I'm against defending my country. I just don't agree with drafting/serving for 'police actions', which is the most common use of personnel overseas.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:20 to 44? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      This is really the Selective Service admitting that the general draft program is in danger of being dropped because its rarely used, and technology exists so that a draft can quickly be formed from scratch since it's already possible to get a list of everybody in this nation aged 20-25 thanks to other projects. So, they're trying to find themselves new jobs.

    2. Re:20 to 44? by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but this isn't a general draft. The conscripts will be coding, not fighting. You don't need to be particularly fit to do that ;)

      And yes, what is next IS the general draft. They have already hired all the required personel for the local draft boards. Spent $28 million to get the draft ready to begin no later than June 15th, 2005. What's that? They need congressional approval? Read Bills S 89 and HR 163. They would have been in the news, but they had just caught Saddam so it never made the cut...

      It's not the entire country, though. Just able bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 26...unless they've change that range. And yes, it is co-ed now ;) And if you are a student, or a farmer...you arn't excluded this time. If you want a drivers licence, or if you attended public school, you are already registered. Although if they got your name, address, and phone number from your school, you had the opportunety for your parents to opt you out, but the schools are not required to inform you of that option, or even that they are giving your information to the government. If schools do not comply, they lose government funding.

      And as for "for their entire life" no, just 30 years. You see, many of the troops, reserves, and National Guard in Iraq (est 43%) are not planning to reenlist. Unfortunatly, they have been "stop gapped" back into service anyways; many of them whose tours were supposed to end in 2003 or 2004 have found they NOW end in 2030. And yes, the war will still be going on in 2030. Bush himself has said he expects The War on Terror to drag on for several more decades at the minimum. I mean, they have only toppled 2 nations so far, and they still have Iran, Libya and Syria to topple, not to mention North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:20 to 44? by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha. YOU think you'll avoid basic because they want you to code? Dream on.

    4. Re:20 to 44? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this crap get modded informative??? He implies that two Bills, which died in Committee, got passed and are the law of the land.

  53. bad idea by pardasaniman · · Score: 1

    What a waste of valuable battlefield skill that can only be obtained by digitally blowing up peoples guts!!

  54. Move to India? :) by jarich · · Score: 1

    Instead of moving into a combat zone, you could take the advice of last week's Slashdot article and move to India to work! :)

    1. Re:Move to India? :) by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

      Ummmm technically no, as long as you are a United States citizen you are subject to the draft.

      However somehow I doubt you'll see a bunch of suits coming after you in India because you're not reporting when drafted. After all they never went to Canada to collect the running draftees in the Vietnam war, nor would Canada let them if they tried (if it isn't Canada's or India's war, they won't be thrilled about Selective Service grabbing draft dodgers).

      Also bear in mind if you run to India or elsewhere, you may not be coming back without facing criminal penalty. Only in recent times was an amnesty signed for allowing draft dodgers in Canada to come back.

      --
      ...in bed
    2. Re:Move to India? :) by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a draftdodger now be classified as a terrorist/non-military combatant, therefore allowing Bushy to reach for a big stick to force Canada to comply?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:Move to India? :) by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Despite Bush's beliefs, the treaty of Westphalia is still protecting the idea of Popular Soverenity. If Canada doesn't want newly paying citizens to return to their country of origin, and that country does want them to, it's Canada's call. Those citizens might risk problems like loss of citizenship, but if Canada wants to keep them and let them give their tax money to the Canadian government, then they're entitled to that. Unless of course, Bush wanted to start a war just to grab a few draft dodgers, but that's insane.

  55. no by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    skilled officers are not cannon fodder. They want the unwashed masses that are otherwise useless drains on society in order to eliminate the problem by killing them off.
    Besides, if you join the military with a college degree, they automagically put you in OCS (or so i have heard), or at least as a relativly well off NCO. I have no military experience myself. I had a cousin in Vietnam, grand parents in the Army and Navy in WW2, and an uncle who sucked so bad they sent him to Korea 3 times to get him out of the way, so don't quote me as an authority.

    1. Re:no by Vagary · · Score: 1

      I have a pretty good idea that officers are not treated as cannon fodder, but they seem to spend almost no advertising dollars reassuring me of that fact. The military image is, at most, a way to pay for college or a career for those who can't hack private industry. Why isn't it positioned as valuable post-grad leadership training, instead?

  56. Public Appearence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be a way of the US Government putting a Public Face on their secret technology initiaitves. Most of the military's technological advancements are achieved through outsourcing to corporations. In our current political environment, people should be more receptive to an open Military Initiative to "hire" a population directly; we must have a government agency, in the open, that is fighting the Rogue States technologically. By revmoing the Corporate cloak, it allows the government to have more control over the situation, while maintaing the populations insatiable appetite for displays of American Might.

  57. When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Vagary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How did the military manage to get such a bad reputation in the private sector? If they played their cards right, those 5 years after college should look like an MBA or Professional Project Manager on your resume, but instead they look about as good as 5 years at McDonalds. Remember: staff officer schools in Europe invented the very style of education (plus much of the content) that is being taught in business schools today, and yet look how far they have fallen.

    If the military was seen as providing something to their employees, they wouldn't have a recruiting problem.

    1. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How did the military manage to get such a bad reputation in the private sector?"

      I think it has something to do with the nature of any military being something most people want to stay out of entirely.

      In the end, you got people who just don't like war period or anything to do with it, and definitely don't like being *forced* into them against their will.

    2. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by _|()|\| · · Score: 1
      How did the military manage to get such a bad reputation in the private sector?

      It's not fair to characterize the OP as representative of the private sector, considering that he's from a military family. I think the officer ranks, which most people recognize from movies, still command respect. A special skills draft, however, would likely land you at one of less familiar enlisted ranks, like specialist.

      If I saw military experience on a resume, I would consider the candidate likely to be more mature and disciplined than your average college graduate. As for work experience, I won't necessarily add points for knowing how to calculate a firing solution with a slide rule, but I certainly won't deduct any.

    3. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Vagary · · Score: 1

      I've heard that there are 9 military support personnell for every soldier on the front-lines. I'd guess that many, if not most, officers spend their entire enlistment without touching a weapon after bootcamp. And yet the image the military sells is of people running around on maneuvers if not real wars.

      The forcing is certainly a problem. I have no idea whether officers have the career path flexibility to choose positions with low probability of combat. Certainly there is a PR gap there, as well.

    4. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 0

      I see the military as a stellar way to stop breathing before age 30. I really can't imagine why anyone would join up out of their own free will.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    5. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Vagary · · Score: 1

      Mature and disciplined maybe, but I believe very few employers would treat the military service as equivalent to a manager training program, which is what it has the potential to be. At least part of the problem is that the military is regarded as yet another hopeless public bureaucracy and therefore officers are nothing more than hapless technocrats.

      To get me to join the military, which has lower pay and higher risk, I'd need it to be at least as beneficial to my career as a similar period of work as a civilian, and right now, it just isn't.

    6. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      If the military was seen as providing something to their employees, they wouldn't have a recruiting problem.

      If the military didn't have a recruiting problem, then their standards for admission wouldn't be so low, and employers wouldn't equate "ex-military" with "couldn't get into college".

    7. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      I've heard that there are 9 military support personnell for every soldier on the front-lines.

      I've seen that number before, and it doesn't quite hold up - it basically assumes that only the m-16 carrying grunt is a 'solider on the front'. Which means the entire Navy, Air Force & Coast Guard are 'military support personnel'. Which isn't quite right.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    8. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      If the military was seen as providing something to their employees, they wouldn't have a recruiting problem.
      If the military paid its employees a good wage I think they'd be seen in a better light. In today's world a smaller military made of more highly trained career soldiers makes a lot of sense (at least so say a number of Generals at the Pentagon, I assume they know what they're talking about). You can't get that when the military pay is diddily squat though. I'm not talking about officers here, I'm talking about the low level soldiers who actually do the fighting and dying.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    9. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      How did the military manage to get such a bad reputation in the private sector? If they played their cards right, those 5 years after college should look like an MBA or Professional Project Manager on your resume, but instead they look about as good as 5 years at McDonalds.
      Mostly fallout from the Vietnam 'war'. Prior to that, most people had actually served, and knew the advantages of having been in the service. Nowadays, something like 1-in-10 have served in any capacity.
    10. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they're idealistic, and want to make things better? Seriously, what has the world come to? "I like my toys, and I don't want to get hurt, becuase then I couldn't play with them", never mind the people that died so that you could have them.

    11. Re:When Did Being an Officer Start to Suck? by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As if there's anything honorable about what the US military these days.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
  58. Obligatory M*A*S*H tie-in by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    Hotlips O'Houlihan: I wonder how such a degenerated person ever reached a position of authority in the Army [Computer] Corps.

    Father Mulcahy: He was drafted.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Obligatory M*A*S*H tie-in by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      I assume they're talking about Hawkeye?

    2. Re:Obligatory M*A*S*H tie-in by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Hawkeye as played by Donald Sutherland in the original movie.

      --
      Yeah, right.
  59. the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since men and women are both admitted to the military now, drafting (especially in non-combat roles) men only is clearly unconstitutional. There is no legal justification for coercing only men to go into the military. Separate prisions is an entirely unrelated issue.

    The original poster is right, too. The present draft laws would never survive a court challenge on constitutionality, and politicans aren't anywhere near the point at which they'd sign laws allowing the draft of women.

  60. Being in the Military by An-Unnecessarily-Lon · · Score: 0

    I can assure you the intentions are always good. Hoever the decisions made are defined by budget. I am in Computer Network Administration in the AF. My retention Bonus is 60K for 6 more years. Not bad. However that will not be a factor in my descision to Re-Enlist. The move forward like any IT professional is to have fewer admins period. More Deployable networks for quick reaction packages. Base Comm squadrons are being contracted out to CIVs who generally give 2 shits about form and functionality. Microsoft products are not the largest problem because of our Boundry protection in 99% of all AF networks. There will always be hacks that leave something unsecure. So in conclusion- Less money poor decisions or more money even worse decisions. The only thing that Keeps AF Nets going are the dedicated techs such as myself who work 14-15 days straight 12hr shifts 6000 miles away from any conflict and like it. (ok maybe not so much like it)

  61. Doesn't matter. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But how do they determine who has "computer skills"?

    Doesn't matter. They never put you to work in your specialty anyhow.

    Or do it nearly so - like the expert electronics guy they assigned to dig (by hand) trenches to drive the radar trucks into so only the antenna was above ground, back in WW II.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  62. Plead Gay by Vagary · · Score: 1

    The US military has a don't-ask-don't-tell policy about homosexuality, right? So if you've outed yourself as a civilian, doesn't that prevent them from drafting you?

    If those are there excuses for women, what are their excuses for keeping gays out of the military? Will they be distracted by their comrades' wiles? Are they worried about the Muslim enemies raping them?

    Crazy country you guys got down there...

  63. The "flatfoot" exception by cryptoluddite · · Score: 1


    For all those GNOME using computer professionals out there...

  64. Why limit it to age 44 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The agency already has in place a special system to register and draft health care personnel ages 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis.

    There are plenty of doctors age 44-65 who can do their job just fine. Think "Colonel Potter".
    If there's a draft, everybody should be subject to it.

  65. Resume? by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

    OK, so where do I send my resume?

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  66. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by WarlockD · · Score: 1

    What about if your freaking 100 pounds overweight? They can't take ya if you can't do a pull up!

  67. The 14th ammendment doesn't protect gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not mentioned anywhere in there. The ERA was proposed and written after women were allowed in the military. It didn't pass. If it weren't necessary, why was it written?

    1. Re:The 14th ammendment doesn't protect gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was it written? Maybe it was misguided. Existence doesn't equate legitimacy. By that logic all patents are legitimate.

  68. I doubt they'd want me. by Limburgher · · Score: 1
    I protested the war in Iraq, am an avowed liberal, and have signed petitions for the dismissal of both Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. I also have ethical issues with killing. I'm FAR too "subversive". :)

    Now, if they want to draft me into a Quake-playing brigade, I'm all for it, but RL guns? Forget it.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:I doubt they'd want me. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people become "liberal" and "peacenik" when it comes to the threat of being drafted. Funny how that works. :)

      I can't stand Ashcroft and want him arrested for crimes against the Constitution, but that isn't on the draft lottery number. :)

      The draft is an equal opportunity employer. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:I doubt they'd want me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The draft is an equal opportunity employer. :)

      No its not.

    3. Re:I doubt they'd want me. by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the wealthy couldn't either buy their way out or quickly enroll in college, it would be. Try being poor and dodging the draft. Can't go to college, can't have daddy ship to to Alabama, can't afford a bus ticket to Canada. You go to war.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    4. Re:I doubt they'd want me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you've never seen "Sargeant York?"

    5. Re:I doubt they'd want me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhhh...

      you are of course aware that all the things listed by you as reasons that they would not "want" you? Are the very reasons that you will be drafted first, and not for a cushy coding gig! You will likely be drafted and assigned to a Marine combat rifle company. And they don't expect you to serve! They expect you to go ape shit and get yourself BCD'd and thereby marginalized to irrelevence. And for the uninformed BCD is B ad C onduct D ischarge, it screws you worse then a felony conviction! People and companys that will hire convicted felons won't touch a BCD.

  69. Is the battle front changing landscapes? by dalamarian · · Score: 1

    Just seems to me that more and more of modern day warfare will take place in network/computer form. Not to say that traditional warfare will be done away with, that would be ridiculous.

  70. Amateur Radio by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amateur radio operators were an important source of technically skilled recruits during World War II. Computer hackers could fill a similar role in future conflicts. Not so much for their civilian skills, but for a pool of people with demonstrated intelligence and aptitude for technical jobs.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  71. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me? Britain was a tad bit busy dealing with Germany to be bailing anyone out of anything during World War II.

  72. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a 'fat boys' program in all branches of the military. They force you to do the two things that most dieters can't (they typically only do one): excercise -and- reduce calorie intake.

    Picture waking up at 4 every morning to "I'm gonna make you strong!".

  73. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what boot camp is for.

  74. Oh come on by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't they, like, have a special draft for lawyers? Why pick on us techies? Okay, sure they won't be much use in battle, but still.. wouldn't everyone like to see the fellas at SCO trying to put a restraining order on an Iraqi guerilla army?

    1. Re:Oh come on by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      They only have the special draft for people they need, like doctors or techies. I guess they could draft lawyers for live fire exercises, as targets.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Oh come on by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      It's because you have skills...laywers don't have any beyond recall of precedent...something a computer can do in about a few years time. And don't tell me 'they interpret the law too!'...that's what judges are for :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:Oh come on by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Why don't they, like, have a special draft for lawyers?
      Draft those damn politicians. They started the war in the first place, let them finish it themselfs.
    4. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To do what? Sue Osama?

    5. Re:Oh come on by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Why don't they, like, have a special draft for lawyers?"

      Operation lawyer-shield, you will be leading the attack. Expect heavy casualties.

    6. Re:Oh come on by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Why don't they, like, have a special draft for lawyers?

      Because they get enough by enlistment. You join up as a second lieutenant, get promoted to first lieutenant (at least, depending on experience) the following day, and get some specialty pay...and not every newbie fresh out of the bar exam gets the rich-and-famous contract at a bigtime firm. Some lawyers were drafted during WW2, and lots of doctors.

      rj

    7. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      judges have a weird tendency to be lawyers.

      go figure.

    8. Re:Oh come on by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      Don't you get it? This is the third prong of Microsoft's plan. The first was FUD, the second was the SCO debacle -- now, with those hard-bought politicians they own, they're going to reinstate the draft. They'll make sure that the draft picks are done using Access, which will allow them to skew the results so that everybody who's ever written code under the GPL will be drafted. Once free software is outside the country...that's when they strike!

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
  75. wahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, old men could get drafted and mainly non-techno saavy young men need to be worried about dodging bullets.

  76. How will they find us? by calmdude · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder how they will be able to know if we are indeed experts in our field? Will they draft only the pioneers of our field? Only those names that have published books?

    Perhaps they'll surf Monster.com for resumes.

    1. Re:How will they find us? by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

      This is where being a self-educated hack pays off because without any certifications they can't find you

    2. Re:How will they find us? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      That's a catch 22 because without formal education, it's hard to find jobs now. Most IT jobs I've seen posted requires 4 year degrees.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    3. Re:How will they find us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why i'm lucky.. i got an IT related job but i have no formal eduaction (hell, i'm a HS drop out.. social anxiety and depression made it too hard to leave my house so i had to quit)

      They'll never find me, and if they do, i'm nuts so they cant draft me =P

  77. Credit Rating by Syncdata · · Score: 1

    (believe it or not, certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you
    They most certainly do. They can get all the "He's such a good boy" answers from neighbors/family, but an employer can't vouch for a persons honesty based on anything other than experience. They can, however, check your credit history. If, for instance, you had a lean on your property, or possessed a significant ammount of debt, you would be an attractive target for foreign intel recruiters, if you were working on anything sensitive.
    Banks don't like to hire tellers who NSF their checking accounts either. They're more likely to dip in the till.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
  78. What about the Security Clerance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I wonder how 'quick' a call up of drafted computer specialist could be. To touch a government computer system anywhere requires at minimum a SECRET clearance. Most positions (like those that would probably be filled by drafted specialist) would most likely need TOP SECRET /TS SCI clearances at minimum.

    These investigations take from 1 to 3 years and in this case would be largely involuntary.

    Just drink underage or smoke some pot in front of the people that you plan to reference on your clearance paper work. :)

  79. Y2K? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

    I think that in 97 or 98 I read that there was a possibility that, if the government couldn't get their act together, they would draft programmers to get them ready to go.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  80. So go already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please just go now. Help by getting even just 98 pounds of chickenshit scum out of the country. Got news for you. Don't need you, don't want you.

    1. Re:So go already by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      "Don't need you, don't want you... if you're not willing to become a slave..."

      is that where this was going?

    2. Re:So go already by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      Got news for you. Don't need you, don't want you.

      Your failing economy, sagging tech, and ever privacy-encroaching government, says that, yes, you do need computer engineers like myself to stay in this country. Else we'll just have geniuses as yourself posting flames as AC's - yeah, way to help out there, guy.

  81. That only works if people have jobs. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is the problem with this "jobless recovery".

    Too many people don't have jobs. People without jobs are NOT paying taxes. People without jobs ARE taking money in the form of unemployment benefits. If someone loses a job, that person goes from a net gain for the system to a net loss for the system.

    Bush's theory is that if you give lots of money to rich people, then they'll hire more people and there will be a enough additional people paying taxes to offset the loss of the tax cut.

    Except that the people being hired are NOT US citizens in the US. So the government is taking in less money because of the tax cuts and the jobs are going to India so the US citizens aren't being hired so they can't pay into the system to offset the original tax cut.

    Now, this means BIGGER profits for the corporations which mean BIGGER profits for the execs of those companies.

    But rich people do NOT spend money the same way the average person does. One person buying $500,000 boat is NOT the same as 25 people buying $20,000 cars.

    So, tax cuts and increased profits actually yielded ZERO new jobs last month.

    There seems to be a very basic flaw in your logic. Your process does not accurately predict events.

    1. Re:That only works if people have jobs. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Oh, if I only had mod points...+1 whatever.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    2. Re:That only works if people have jobs. by Toddlerbob · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, tax cuts and increased profits actually yielded ZERO new jobs last month.

      I also find it amusing / tragic that in the last month where several thousand American jobs were created, they were created in the government / public sector and not in the private sector. I mean, if the government is the only one hiring, maybe we should reinstitute those taxes so we could put more people to work.

    3. Re:That only works if people have jobs. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Nice piece of fiction. Each paragraph of yours either false, irrevelant, or ignores more important aspects of the situation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:That only works if people have jobs. by Kohath · · Score: 1
      Bush's theory is that if you give lots of money to rich people

      Except no one "gave" any money to anyone. Letting people keep their own money isn't a "gift".

      What was the rest of your point? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter....

    5. Re:That only works if people have jobs. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Except that the people being hired are NOT US citizens in the US. So the government is taking in less money because of the tax cuts
      It's Reaganomics all over again, but way back then the USA produced a lot more that the world wanted, so could get out of that hole after Reagan.

      US Foreign policy appears to the rest of the world to be - "we are powerful - do what we say", but domestic policy is making the US a lot less powerful, so this may in the long run just piss people off. The economic power post WWI and post WWII is declining, the US doesn't make anywhere near as much as they used to that anyone wants. Enormous amounts of fake US currency circulate around the world - this can't help either. Ignoring the ecomomy for that sake of national security is counterproductive. The UK thought that international trade would continue to be mostly in pounds sterling, if the US dollar continues to drop international trade will be done with something else there as well - which would do some nasty things to the US economy.

      Economists can feel free to laugh at all this, I laugh at them all the time, but they certainly can't all be idiots.

  82. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn some history you ungrateful bastard. The British were fighting two fronts in WW-II, against the Germans and Italians in Europe, and against the Japanese in the far east.

  83. I'll move to Canada... by doormat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is America, you'd think by now we'd be fighting with robot armies and other new-age weaponry.

    Besides, I'd rather put effort into improving infrastructure than destroying it. Give every Iraq cable TV and start a bunch of McDonalds and they'll be too lazy and fat like us Americans to give a shit about their government.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:I'll move to Canada... by Willard+B.+Trophy · · Score: 1

      We'll make you most welcome. We've still got plenty of the 1960s-vintage draft-resisters here. Oh, and better beer.

    2. Re:I'll move to Canada... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "This is America, you'd think by now we'd be fighting with robot armies and other new-age weaponry."

      I. A robot shall not harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to be harmed.

      (and yes, I work with people who develop UAVs)

    3. Re:I'll move to Canada... by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, 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 eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

      US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005

    4. Re:I'll move to Canada... by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      This is America, you'd think by now we'd be fighting with robot armies and other new-age weaponry.

      Which pretty well explains an increased need for techies, doesn't it?

      rj

    5. Re:I'll move to Canada... by Nimey · · Score: 1
      Give every Iraq cable TV and start a bunch of McDonalds and they'll be too lazy and fat like us Americans to give a shit about their government.
      Is that supposed to be a good thing?
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:I'll move to Canada... by Jack+Action · · Score: 1

      All slashdotters are welcome in Canada. The draft dodgers during the Vietnam war by-and-large went on to become professors, writers, activists and even politicians (one of them is currently on city council here in Vancouver, B.C.). I'm sure slashdotters would enrich the country to an even greater degree.

      As for the new smart border and homeland security, that was a problem even then. There was an underground railroad during Vietnam that smuggled draft dodgers up. For those who are interested, it seems a new version may be started for modern draft dodgers.

      Taking a stand is tough, but public opinion in Canada will support anyone who makes it here.

  84. And who's up first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who viewed the story by clicking the slashdot link will obviously be viewed as the first round draft picks. Better use an anonymous proxy first! Slashdot is to the geek platoons what ROTC was to the leadership corps!

  85. The problem isn't legality by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's the can of worms that gets opened up. Just raising of discrimination the issue is enough to scare off most congressmen. It's like Social Security; it's one of those things you can't fix without pissing off some large group of people. Congressmen are in the business of getting elected, they're not leaders. So, yes, in the end you're not likely to see women drafted, but in the meantime no one wants to no one wants to deal with the the politcal fallout when the issue comes up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  86. Can't wait to see... by Nicholas+Q+Name · · Score: 0

    Deathmatch : VB script babies versus Osama bin Laden.

    --
    Sig: Closed for refurbishment.
  87. draftees? running computers? by loraksus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really want draftees running your IT/IS? Christ, there is enough documentation about the effectiveness of conscript vs volunteer troops out there, which pretty much make it clear that the ones who volunteer are the ones you want to have "doing stuff". A lot of that material refers to infantry (also known as the "shoot back or die" department of the armed forces) but I'm sure there is an equally significant ton of documentation about support troops.

    Can you imagine the complete and utter lack of motivation of drafted rear echelon computer guys?

    Besides the fact that most geeks tend not to be the most motivated people when it comes to things that are forced on them, I'd venture to guess that 50%(conservative? I think so) would be disqualified outright, for either being a bit too hefty or for other medical reasons.

    Also, geeks are pretty bright and shall we say rather "inventive" when it comes to thinking up excuses (i.e. hemorrhoids) and getting doctor's notes etc.

    And, of course, those not bright enough to avoid the draft are not the ones you want running your IT, but that is getting back to the whole conscript thing.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  88. Catch 22 provides an example by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    M&M enterprises contracts with the Germans to have the squadron bomb its own airfield in exchange for taking a load of Egyptian cotton off its hands.

    Bleak view of human and corporate nature.

  89. Take that by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    All of you who finished college.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  90. Just trust me, really by fnj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "there are twin bills in the house and senate in order to conscript for active duty, rerserve military, and homeland security civilian jobs... I forgot the bill numbers... I'll stake my life and reputation that it's true, though.

    Yeah, riiiiight. Come back when you can cite the bills. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzz.

    Not that there aren't a LOT of bills introduced in Congress on every crazy subject every year.

    P.S. The Constitution Party rules. Stick with it. The Libertarian Party has turned into a lunatic fringe debating society off in la la land.

    1. Re:Just trust me, really by bsDaemon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Libertarians were always a lunatic fringe. I'm strongly concidering going to the CP's VA State Convention on the 24th and attempting a seat as a party elector for the electoral college.
      I don't know where my sis has gone off to in order to ask her the bill numbers or i would cite them.

    2. Re:Just trust me, really by fnj · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Do it! Anything that tosses even a little whiff of reality toward the Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties gets my support (in spirit, of course).

      Seriously, if/when you do find the citation, post it here - it would make a good read. Or, here's another idea. Why don't we citizens try to skim over ALL the bills filed each year. It would be an eye opener.

      "Someone" should index all this crap and make it publically available (REALLY available, with a GOOD search engine).

    3. Re:Just trust me, really by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I recommend staying in school and learning basic spelling before attempting anything. I knew Dan Quayle, and you are no Dan Quayle.

    4. Re:Just trust me, really by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      there used to be an 'e' at the end of potatoe, and i'll be in my cold, dark grave before I eliminate it.

    5. Re:Just trust me, really by bellings · · Score: 0, Troll

      Someone from the Constituion Party calling Libertarians the lunatic fringe is rich, sweet irony.

      Keep your filthy, imaginary, shit-throwing sky ape out of my government.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
  91. Re:How about this. by Ga_101 · · Score: 1

    O deary me, I wonder what would have happened if the USA had not revolted against British rule, because we all know that there are no examples of a north american colony that didn't revolt ;)

    For people lacking in sarcasm detection software, I'm talking about Canada.

  92. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn some yourself. It was the Russians sending 1 million men to Manchuria that had the largest influence on the Japanese surrender. The Russians contribution to WW2 is conveniently forgotten about Go look at theWW2 death count and put your US/UK bickering into perspective

  93. Re:How about this. by Nurseman · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The British all have health care, decent education,

    I've seen a number of British and Canadian citizens post about the quality of thier health care, and you get what you pay for. Yes, it's free, but the wait for doctors is very long, options are few, and generally the better care goes to those who pay. Do you think the Queen and Joe Six Pint go to the same doctor ? Not saying this is right, or wrong, just a way of life.

    and they gave us the Beatles

    And The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, and I will be eternally grateful :-)

    --
    Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
  94. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Glamdrlng · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually the army PFT is based on push ups, situps, and a 2 mile run. Pull ups are required for entry into ranger school, but they otherwise aren't a factor. There are however height&weight/body fat requirements.

    --

    Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
  95. I only regret that I have but one life to give by khasim · · Score: 1

    to further the copyright protections of the Disney Corporation.

  96. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's true they were fighting two fronts as well as being supplied by America. But they were hopelessly losing, at least until the Soviets were betrayed by Germany, diverting some of their attention. Japan dragging America into the war to fight along side Great Britain saved the world from a very dark future.

    Pretty much everyone knows this and they are sometimes only secretly act grateful.

  97. You're the kind of guy we need in the military. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need the kind of guys that don't think they belong in the military on the front lines in a real emergency. When some clown officer says "lets' shoot up this village", guys like you will stand up to him.

  98. WooHoo! by Blue+Eagle+26 · · Score: 0, Funny

    I have never been so glad to be morbidly obese! Im exempt! Im so excited! Woooooooooooooooo! *Cough* *Hack* *oh god my heart*

  99. Given me? Like war, pesitilence and famine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Give something back! To a government that stood by and allowed 3000 people to die! My ass! Fuck them.

    In case you weren't paying attention, this war isn't for America, this is a war for oil and for big business.

    We were lied to. There was no threat from Iraq. There were no WMD's. All lies.

    You want me to give something back? After the same government gave me so much, like letting Ken Lay crash the economy, and letting him go scotfree. Or importing tens of thousands of foreign workers to undercut our wages. Or exporting hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas.

    Or how about my fine healthcare? Or you must be talking about our precious freedoms?

    Please, this country didn't give me shit. You can't exercise your right to protest without some fascist like Miami's Timoney calling you an "anarchist" and shooting you in the head with lead filled beanbags.

    This country is worthless to me. All the good ole USofA ever did to me was tax the fuck out of my paychecks when I did good, and give me the shaft when I did bad.

    My state government and local government did give me quite a lot - a good public education, and a good community college - but no thanks to the fed.

    Wake up. You were programmed to say, like an Pavlov's dog, "America is the best country in the world", and "America is a free country".

    Really, please, wake the fuck up. Don't you see what's really going on? We have a fucking moron in office who got there by manipulating the republican primary (which he was losing to McCain) and then by blatantly cheating in Florida. He made sure his brother Jeb kept black people from voting to make sure he won the election.

    Then, 9 months later, after the longest vacation in Presidential history, 9/11 happens. Where was our military that fine morning? Where are the squadrons of F-16s that are supposed to keep us safe?

    Where? THEY WERE ORDERED TO STAND DOWN.

    Everyone would know it if our imperialist leader wouldn't be such a coward and actually testify in front of the 9/11 commission.

    This is a country where democracy was overthrown by the top 1%. They own the politicans, they own the voting mechanism and they own the media. They tell you what to think and what to say.

    I've given enough to this country. I vote and I pay taxes. I see my taxes go to corporate welfare and my votes go nowhere, because they don't count.
    I saw my job dissappear and unemployment skyrocketing. There is no assistance for us, but there is plenty of money to bail out American Airlines. And now, you're telling me I should give something back?

    I'll give them what they gave me. I'll give Bush a one-way ticket to Crawford Texas. I'll give them crushing bills for things people in other countries take for granted - like health care and education.

    The middle class have been stepped on long enough. They have devastated the manufacturing industry, and now the information industry. They short change their middle class investors, have congress grant them monopoly powers by abusing copyrights and patents, and then use these new laws to invade our homes with bullshit subpeonas because we want to exercise fair use of media. They stand by while companies like lil' Dick Cheney's Halliburton does business with Iraq, Iran and Libya, and then give them huge contracts to rip us off in Iraq.

    They demoralized and ruined the military by abusing the Guard and Reserves. Our vets get the shaft at VA hospitals and the GI Bill is a joke, you can't pay for college with what they give you.

    Now, because they can't get any more dupes to go fight for oil, they want to draft me? Fuck that noise. Let the chickenhawks go and fight. Or better yet, why don't we do the smart thing with the middle east? Develop clean, renewable alternative energy so we can tell those SOBs what to go do with themselves.

    Or, we can take your advice and get our asses shot off so Halliburton can charge $40 for a gallon of gas, in the place where's its made.

  100. flamebait... by michaeltoe · · Score: 1
    ...either that, or you honestly believe in those WMD's.

    I hear they've been shuffled to Iran now...

    1. Re:flamebait... by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's more to serving your country that whether or not you agree with the President. Somehow I doubt the audience that reads slashdot is also so polically adept that they would understand all of the issues our country has to deal with on a daily basis. I don't care if there were WMD or not, we made Saddam Hussein, put him in power, and it was our job to scrape him off the sidewalk after what he did to his own people.

    2. Re:flamebait... by michaeltoe · · Score: 1
      Oh I forgot, in America, our government always does what's right.

      So I guess it would be stupid of me to question their motives. Hah, what could I have been thinking?

    3. Re:flamebait... by Master+Bait · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There's more to serving your country that whether or not you agree with the President.

      Funny how all the warmongers sit in their mansions while the serfs get convinced that they are ones who have to 'kick raghead ass'. It's a crock of shit. You don't owe any goddam thing to your goddam country except to pay your taxes and defend it's borders.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
  101. Very interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up mostly on Air Force bases. I kinda always wanted to be a pilot, but I had asthma so it was never really an option. I got into computers very early, basic programming at 5/6... lol... 25 now and working in development for 7 years... this article has rekindled a possibility that I could use my skills to serve my country. I have a lot of respect for our armed forces.

  102. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by thestarz · · Score: 1

    And you don't know how you use the shift or apostrophe keys!

    --

    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  103. Where do I send my resume??? by Beaker1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps they wouldn't have such a shortage of enlisted and non-commissioned technical workers if it wasn't so freakin' hard to figure out how to find and apply for the jobs! Have you ever tried to decipher a federal job posting? Ack. They never list specific skills they are looking for. I wonder if there are any recruiters that specialize in placing technical workers in federal positions? I would love the chance to work for my country using the skills that I've developed over the past 12 years, and I hear that the pension and benefits are pretty good too!

    --
    "Who hasn't slipped into the break room for a quick nibble on a love Newton before?" - Mr. Peterman.
  104. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you knew anything about Americans, you'd know just like anyone else we'd be as likely to be speaking Japanese as the British would be to invent a main course that doesn't involve throwing anything into a pot and boiling it for three days.

  105. Out-Source it to India by nighthawk_six · · Score: 0

    Since the government is in bed with Indian tech lobbies to send many of the computer specialist jobs to Bangalore and New Delhi ... then let them draft their military computer specialists over there as well. Since the military pays its draftees peanuts, it should mesh well with the current earnings of foreign out-sourced tech workers.

    It is hypocritical to screw U.S. citizens out of their livelihood, then turn around and use them as cannon fodder in the same field. Although tech specialists are not combat soldiers, the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan leaves them even more exposed. Lightly armed support units are the favorite targets for terrorists, suicide bombers, and guerrillas. Nobody is "safe" anymore.

    I've been both a combat soldier in Iraq and a computer specialist. This selective draft makes me want to kick Dubyah, Rummie, and the rest of gang of hypocrites square in the cohones.

  106. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Micro$will · · Score: 1

    On my ship we called them the "Dancing Bears". If you failed mandatory PT, you would have to get up on the flight deck an hour before everyone else to excersise. There were a few E-6 and below, but the majority were lardass NCOs that spent most of their time in the Chief's Mess.

  107. No worries - you'll shed those lbs in boot camp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hehehe

  108. Desensitized. by toolo · · Score: 0

    Maybe they will put in a option for Online FPS Gamer...since we are all desensitized to massive killings of our fellow man, we'd be pretty good grunts on the field.. right?

  109. Damm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is just too bad that I have the geeky lifestyle and have just a touch too much weight...

    Damm I was looking forward to it also.

  110. Re:Has the world gone mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hope they still still have some pros form the Franco's days for interrogating them

    Why would they do it themselves? There's no deniability in case a nosy investigating journalist or a left-wing bleeding heart liberal organization like Amnesty International gets a whiff of it.

    What they should do is to outsource the interrogations - just like the US is doing right now.

    Ship the suspects to Morocco, Egypt or Jordan where they get all the electroshock and rubberhose treatment the hosts have to offer. It's cheaper, more effective and we can always deny any involvement.

  111. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you don't know how to type "how to use!"

  112. FUCK THE DRAFT!!! by sa-thigpen · · Score: 0, Troll

    FUCK THE WAR!

    FUCK THE DRAFT!

    FUCK THIS BULLSHIT!

    1 in 5 of the current "youth" generation is enslaved by the Bush Dictatorship! I guess this is there way to "get the rest of us".

    Run, hide, do what ever you can to evade this bullshit! These bastards will have you kill without a second thought. Run to Canada, Europe, the Ocean, U.S. free cities (San Francisco, etc), wherever you can -- run for your lives!!!!

  113. "special skills", uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "special skills" like playing Quake etc all day long - obviously computer geeks are bloodthirsty psychopaths that *ought* to be on the front lines :)

  114. at least.... by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 1

    At least then I would HAVE a job

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  115. This is great for employment... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    ...sorry to break it to you, but suppose this draft ends is indeed called for, the computer specialists are going to get rather rare (again).
    Thus, other people will have to take their place. Compare it to woman in WO-II working at armories, because all the men were enlisted.

    I guess in a way that is good for people who sit on the bench right now, for they will have a (normal) job again :)

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:This is great for employment... by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      That's what India is for..

  116. One word: by Asprin · · Score: 1


    One word: India.


    JUST KIDDING!!!!!




    [the lameness filter rears its ugly head - YET AGAIN - forcing me to type lower-case nonsense to get around the fact that yes, indeed, I am writing in all caps to simulate yelling.]

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  117. *bzzt* Wrong guess! by gr3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "bachelor's degree" = "officer" assertion hasn't been true since the seventies. Of the eight people I went through basic and AIT with, five had their B.S., in engineering, physics, physical therapy, and english (2). None of us were officers.

    Three did not have their B.S. The individuals without degrees tended to make a little less money from the beginning of their service, but time in service requirements are hard to get a waiver for, and so they tended to be promoted at the same time, or a little later, than those with a degree.

    --
    Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
    1. Re:*bzzt* Wrong guess! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody with a bachelor's degree enlists instead of going straight to officer's school, that is their decision. Officers and enlisted are trained separately. They didn't take the right path if they wanted to be officers.

  118. Health Professions by MagicDude · · Score: 1

    I don't know how much demand for physicians where would be in a draft. The Army, Navy, and Air Force all have scholarship programs for people in med school. They pay the full tuition cost, books, fees, and give a stipend for living expenses. Then after you finish your residency you owe X number of years of active service (The number of years depends on how long your residency was). After that, some people leave but a fair number sign on for another tour. Getting into this program is pretty competitive as well, with more applicants than positions every year. So I would think for the most part the branches of the military would be pretty set on the physicians they need.

  119. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They force you to do the two things that most dieters can't (they typically only do one): excercise -and- reduce calorie intake.

    I should probably enlist just for that.

    I don't know. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind the sweat and mud and occasional humiliation, but I don't think I could handle any PHB mentality whilst in the military.

  120. Re:To The Innocent People Of The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why the Rest of the World HATES America (not all Americans), your attitude of superiority (when you are a bunch of smelly fat greasers) and lack of respect for life, the environment, etc.

    I hope you all die slowly and painfully from some manufactured bio-chemical-warfare agent.

  121. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, and who in their right mind would want to be like Canada? They're so sad, they even try to claim the War of 1812 as their own! (That's despite not even existing as a country at the time!)

  122. This is the first sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    that a major war is coming and the government knows it - and the reason for drafting computer people? it's because the next one is going to be nuclear and the resulting EM damage to electronics will require specialized skill to repair quickly... Look at Iran hiding stuff, Iraq hiding stuff, India and Pakistan, both militantly anti-US, having nukes, unaccounted for Russian suitcase nukes, North Korean long range nuclear ballistic missiles, China, the Balkans, the slow painful collapse of the world economy... the "perfect storm" for another world war...

  123. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aha! Clever, you just proved that you can't even keep your secret plan secret!

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  124. Just like M*A*S*H by Scodiddly · · Score: 1

    Time to start making up funny nicknames like "Hawkeye" and "Trapper John" for each other.

    1. Re:Just like M*A*S*H by Erbo · · Score: 1
      As Slashdot users, don't we already have funny enough nicknames?

      Better to learn the finer points of still construction...

      (heading off, whistling "Suicide Is Painless")

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    2. Re:Just like M*A*S*H by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Better to learn the finer points of still construction...
      Recruit, what is that 24 foot pipe doing standing up behind the comms tent?

      Sir! It's for computer overclocking Sir!

      It smells like alcohol.

      Evaporative cooling Sir!

      Those markings, "plate 8, 98%" near the little tap?

      Ninety eight percent of the way up the pipe Sir!

      Those little white ceramic cups?

      To put in small quantities Sir!

      This little pivoting microscope thing, with markings by weight and by volume? The label printer? All those bottles?

      That's a highly technical question Sir! It's best answered by the reference materials in this carton Sir. Be careful Sir, it's fragile and the corks might be loose.

  125. you're giving me root :) by geeklawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK, so it's a time of national crisis: a few more system failures and the US goes down the pan. You're going to solve this problem by giving Slashdotters root on DoD and FBI computers?

    It's a plan, but I can see a few eensy teeny flaws...

    --
    -he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
    journal
    1. Re:you're giving me root :) by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      This is the government we're talking about here - so that's "Administrator" to you, pal...

      who the hell is "root" anyway?

      But yeah, I see your point :)

    2. Re:you're giving me root :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just give them muti-gigabit network and and they will slashdot the DoD homepage

    3. Re:you're giving me root :) by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      If ever there was a system begging to be hacked...

      (Maybe we should repent and encouraging the DoD to use Microsoft!)

  126. Re:Physical Requirement and Basic Training by Passman · · Score: 1

    Actually you make a good point.

    I never understood why the military sets height/weight limits and requires 6 weeks of physical training (at basic) in order to wire up a network/program a database.

    Is completing 20 pushups in 5 minutes really going to help me troubleshoot a network? Will completing the obsticle course in the given time improve my C++ skills? I don't think so.

    If the military were to get off this kick and open up their recruiting requirements for high tech fields, I'd enlist tomorrow.

    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  127. Hopefully not for combat.... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    just imagine a beowulf cluster of angry, pissed off, offshored slashdotters with automatic weapons...

    That thought alone should probably be enough to frighten any of our enemies into submission...

  128. If we get into a situation like that... by Azureflare · · Score: 1
    We've already lost if we allow the situation to deteriorate to that point. That's why we created the U.N. remember? To avoid another large, costly, and largely useless world war.

    With nuclear weapons proliferated widely among nations at this point in time, it'd be hard to imagine that the world wouldn't go up in a big mushroom cloud. Remember, during WWII the nuke was really, REALLY new. Not so any more.

    Anyway, we're going to be making our robot-drone army soon, so we won't even need humans for our plans to conqu^H^H^H^H^Hsave the world!

  129. Don't become a Conscientious Objector! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    I'm warning you kids.

    If you are drafted and declare yourself to be a "Conscientious Objector", you'll be cleaning out /dev/null for 12 hours a day!

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  130. They _are_ by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Dubya's descended from King Edward I. (And, frankly, I'd prefer Elizabeth II to Dubya any day).

  131. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by neitzsche · · Score: 1

    Just when I thought our government couldn't get any scarier...

    I wonder if changing my resume' to not include my 6 years at SAIC working on DoD healthcare systems would help?

    Maybe it's time to write a virus so they won't want me?

    20yrs - 44 yrs?! I thought the draft was for 19 year olds! This is really scary stuff.

    Now wait a sec...how is it that they can force me to be creative and efficient? How do they think something like this could ever work? Anyone they draft will just make copious subtle errors until they get canned. E.g. "Ooops, I forgot to check authentication when listening on that port...it was only supposed to be commented out during testing."

    I guess it's time to re-register to get a higher /. number.

    --
    "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
  132. Dying for Oil != Dying for Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but going over to some third world sandlot to die so we can replace an elected leader with a moderately oppressive government that's more friendly to US Business interests does not equal my version of dying for the Bill of Rights.

    There is a huge difference. BTW, this isn't the only thing. Salon had a thing on their site a week ago about how the draft board is quietly being re-staffed.

    The reason that BushCo is sneaking these things through is very simple. If November hits and Bush isn't disposed, we're going to war, again, in some NeoCon wet dream fantasyland of turning the rest of the world into "USA 2.0". But we're out of troops, so what's the next option? o/~ D.R.A.F.T. o/~ But BushCo doesn't dare try it until November, because as close as the polls are right now, even the mention of it will get them thrown out for sure.

  133. WooHoo!!! by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    A shot at employment!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  134. Did my time already. by NickRuisi · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many other slashdotters are like me, but I'm rather happy I did my 4 ('92-'96) years in the US Army Signal Corps already.. I worked as a digital comms network engineer (MOS 31F), and honestly, it is what opened the door for me into the field that I work in now.

    1. Re:Did my time already. by JimmT · · Score: 0

      I agree! I did my tour in 92-95 in the Navy and paved my career.

      Jim

      --
      "Life is art...Paint your destiny"
    2. Re:Did my time already. by nitemayr · · Score: 1

      Yes, you VOL-UN-TEERED!
      This is what you chose, not what you were forced into doing. Please remember that you were in the 'forces while a conflict ws winding down and the US was engaged in what may have been called police actions or peacekeeping missions, up until Kosovo, which I don't think you served during, IIRC.

      --
      Hello Kettle,
      You, my friend are as black as pitch.
      With love, Pot.
  135. Re:You're all safe - esp in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was an electronic warfare display at the War Museum in Ottawa this past summer where they showed off the equipment they use in the field... all Windows based. I asked about Linux/Unix and the reply was that these operating systems were not suitable since they involve time to learn and use and that Windows was easier to use and train on... and quicker for operational use where time may be critical... KISS - Keep it simple and stupid...

    fitting comment for this policy.

  136. The Draft is coming ... by pherris · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The last time the draft was used was in 1973. At that time local draft boards were >95% staffed. Draft board positions are voluntary, last 10 years and can be renewed once for another 10 years at the draft board member's request. Over the last 20 years local draft boards have not been replacing members that have left. In June 2002 less than 20% of draft board member positions were filled. By this summer local draft boards will be back up to >95%.

    Now class, can anyone tell me why there would be such a large, quite push to restaff so quickly? Mark my words, the draft will be back.

    Here's my guesses:
    1. If something goes really wrong this summer in Iraq or Afghanistan (like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam) then they will quickly draft and deploy before the November elections.
    2. If Bush is reelected then the draft will start Jan or Feb 2005, slow for the first few months and then when they are up to speed they'll start pulling large amounts of young men.
    3. If Kerry is elected I can't guess what he would do. I don't if there would be a major difference.

    Watch how the US Govt handles draft, induction, training and deployment this time. You'll see companies created that go through boot together, post recruit train together, deploy together, what's left of them will get discharged together and the company disbanded. No more singles in, singles out. This is much more like WWII than Korea or Vietnam.

    If you are 14 - 20 years old then I'd seriously start making plans on what you'll do. Speaking as someone who toted a 16 for his uncle I'd recommend not going at any cost. We use to say "the only thing worst than cleaning a body bag is being in one". As a parent I would do whatever it took to keep my son away from any unjust and immoral war like that clusterfuck going on in the Mid East.

    As Frank Zappa once said: "What they do in Washington is take care of number one and number one ain't you. You ain't even number two."

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    1. Re:The Draft is coming ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Bush is reelected then the draft will start Jan or Feb 2005, slow for the first few months and then when they are up to speed they'll start pulling large amounts of young men.

      That prediction actually does make sense.

      The military is stretched so thin back-to-back deployments like that of the 3rd Infantry are required.

      If GWB wins, we're most probably going to have a conflict with Syria or Iran and he's going to need more troops for that.

    2. Re:The Draft is coming ... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as what would happen if Kerry were elected, I doubt he would institute a draft unless the alternative was foreign troops on US soil. Remember, he was in Vietnam unlike Air National Guard boy. Also, he will have a reelection to worry about, which Bush won't. My own position on the draft is that I will go to jail before being drafted. I might even consider getting shot by the government rather than get drafted. But you're absolutely right that now the 20-somethings have parents and parents' friends who were draft dodgers and can help them out, which was more than the Baby Boomers had.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:The Draft is coming ... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Puh-leeze. If the draft comes back it means one thing and one thing only. The shit really has hit the fan. And trust me I'm not talking about a bomb from some terrorist nutcase, I'm talking full out attack.

    4. Re:The Draft is coming ... by SLot · · Score: 1

      Watch how the US Govt handles draft, induction, training and deployment this time. You'll see companies created that go through boot together, post recruit train together, deploy together, what's left of them will get discharged together and the company disbanded. No more singles in, singles out. This is much more like WWII than Korea or Vietnam.

      This was going on in the 80's. I want to say it was called Echelon recruitment, but it's been 15 years and a lot of beers since.

      Google turns up nothing relevant, since the Echelon /. knows and loves is that big brother type, but I *do* remember whole companies being trained and kept together post-basic for the life of their contracts.

    5. Re:The Draft is coming ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too Late.. you've all ready been drafted..! :=)

      http://www.americasarmy.com

    6. Re:The Draft is coming ... by dynamo · · Score: 1

      READ THIS LINK [congress.gov] IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE HIM

    7. Re:The Draft is coming ... by SLot · · Score: 1

      Ah, that's right - It wasn't echelon - it was called COHORT training. Google has your relevant details.

  137. ITS A PLOY!!! by Praedon · · Score: 1

    Its a ploy to kill all the known hackers!! They will put us in the front line... rid the US Of possible hackers!! I see right through them!! You will never take me!! NEVER!

    But.. Look on the bright side... Our general will be Linus!!!

    --
    Just me
  138. S.89 and HR.163 are the bills by Patik · · Score: 4, Informative
    For S.89, go here and type s 89 into the "By Number:" field.

    For HR.163, go here and type hr 163 into the "Bill Number" field.

  139. thanks by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    my sister jsut walked in as i saw this was posted. Thanks for the foresight.

  140. I was an Army linguist. by gr3y · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And my unit spent most of its time in the motor pool, or in the field, digging in the dirt. Not once did I train to perform a mission as a linguist with my unit while I was in uniform, because officers can't lead soldiers who aren't in the field. It doesn't get them promoted, so they uniformly oppose it. Every bit of funding for every linguist mission was cut, and the mandatory eight hours of language maintenance required for all linguists was gradually reduced to no maintenance at all.

    The only time I was actually useful was while on TDY.

    Any assertion that the military needs people in these specialties is not true. They had them, indeed have them, and I can pick up the phone right now, call the RSDNCO of my former unit, and ask what they will be doing on Monday. I am confident that the answer will be: "motor pool".

    This is something that has been brewing since before the Kennedy Report, and it still pisses me off, especially in light of all the back-pedalling from the FBI and military that they "don't have the resources". They did have them. Due to mismanagement and fucked-up priorities (primarily the OER system), they couldn't keep them. My re-enlistment counseling with my commanding officer (whom I respected a great deal) was, "well I can offer you the Army nurse program, or physician's assistant, but unless you want to become an officer, you won't be able to transfer out of your MOS because it's short".

    During my time in the military, I think about one in three linguists re-enlisted, always for choice of duty station. I cannot count the number of linguists that disappeared, that training wasted, because they spent four (or more) years doing nothing. If they left the military under good terms, they should have been actively pursued by the FBI or NSA so that training wouldn't have been wasted. But it wasn't a priority until 9/11. Then, all those three-letter agencies suddenly realized that they'd better come up with effective damage control fast, so they settled on: "we don't have the resources."

    It's a lie.

    --
    Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
    1. Re:I was an Army linguist. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      er...would you mind defining the ancronyms for those of us without military experience?

    2. Re:I was an Army linguist. by gr3y · · Score: 2, Informative
      • TDY = temporary duty, an "on loan" assignment to another unit.
      • RSDNCO = regimental staff duty non-commissioned officer. There's also a regimental staff duty officer (RSDO). Together, they're the point of contact for the regiment after everyone else is dismissed for the day.
      • OER = officer evaluation report. OERs and NCOERs are the military's version of the quarterly performance review or annual evaluation report used in the civilian sector.
      • MOS = mission occupation specialty, i.e., job.
      --
      Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
    3. Re:I was an Army linguist. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I was particularly wondering about MOS; you had lost me a little there :-)

    4. Re:I was an Army linguist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But were you a cunning linguist?

  141. Drafted to program? Please do! by tjstork · · Score: 1


    Really, if the Indians take all of the programmer work from the USA, I could see getting drafted to do some programming for Uncle Sam.

    --
    This is my sig.
  142. What ranks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have a BS and 14 years FTE working in IT, as well as an M.Div. and 8 years as an ordained minister. Oh, yeah, I looked at going in as a chaplain, but poor eyesight and childhood asthma completely disqualified me.

    If they draft me, I wouldn't mind doing my part. But I want to go in as an O-3, dangit! Not that it will happen anyways, since I work in infosec in a critical infrastructure area, just like my grandpa didn't get drafted in WW II since he was a railroad engineer.

  143. Not enough info... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Did anyone wonder where the Selective Service would get your skills info from? Last I knew, they had my date of birth, SSN and the address I was at when I was 18. What kind of data mining will they be the beneficiaries of to find out that Joe's an IT geek?

    1. Re:Not enough info... by ELiTeUI · · Score: 1
      sure, they will cross-reference your ssn with your tax return from the IRS, which has your job title / profession listed right on your 1040. Filter out all non-computer-related titles, and bingo, you've got yourself a list.

      ELiTeUI

  144. Wrong sequence of events. by gaijin99 · · Score: 2, Informative
    we made Saddam Hussein, put him in power, and it was our job to scrape him off the sidewalk after what he did to his own people.
    Not to get into a major derail here, but you seem to have your sequence of events confused. Hussein was using chemical weapons "on his own people" both prior to receiving massive US military giveaways and during the time he was getting massive US military giveaways. He got the chemical weapons he used on his own people from the US government. Rape, murder, torture, and the other hallmarks of Saddam's government are not a recent development. During the Regan and Bush I administrations while he was getting millions in US support the human rights violations were well known and completely ignored.

    My point here is that the rationale that the US invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons is demonstorably false. If the US government had cared about the plight of the victims of Hussein's government they wouldn't have given him all the money and technology they did. Since we have established that the US government gave him aid while it was aware of his behavior we can only conclude that there is a non-humanitarian reason for the invasion.

    Don't misunderstand, one less evil bastard in the word is a good thing. But the US government continues to persue a policy of giving money and technology to similar evil bastards (the thugs in charge of Uzbekistan, for example). Thus the procolamations of concern for the Iraqi people can only be a rather revoltingly hypocritical smokescreen to try and hide their true motives.

    Just *what* the true motives of the US government are I won't pretend to know, but I will say that its quite obvious that their stated motives are not what's really pushing policy. I suspect that the real motives are a mixture of economic desires (oil), military foreward planning (Iraq is centrally located, thus stragetically valuable), and distraction ("don't worry about the economy, there's a war on!"). That's merely what I suspect, but there can be no doubt that humanitarian reasons are not the cause for the war.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    1. Re:Wrong sequence of events. by goon+america · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, not to nitpick but both you and the parent poster are equivocating.
      we (1) made Saddam Hussein, put him in power, and it was our (2) job to scrape him off the sidewalk after what he did to his own people.
      1 = elements of the Reagan administration
      2 = anthropomorphic current United States
      If the US government (1) had cared about the plight of the victims of Hussein's government they (2) wouldn't have given him all the money and technology they did.
      1 = current US gov't
      2 = elements of the Reagan administration again

      The US is a vague, abstract, amorphous, non-human characteristic-having blob that changes continuosly over time, and it's fallacious to refer to it as the same thing across different swaths of time, having human characteristics or to confuse the US with the US government or a past US government. People do this all the time and it annoys the hell out of me.

  145. Next target for invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is therefore obviously...INDIA!!!!!

  146. Two words: Colonel Stallman by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Enough said. :)

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Two words: Colonel Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serving under General Gates. :-D

      Oops! Billy-boy never finished college, so he'd be ineligible to be an officer. He'd be Corporal Gates.

      Naah, he'd just buy the Army and be General Gates anyway.

    2. Re:Two words: Colonel Stallman by rizzo · · Score: 1

      That might be the case if Colonel Stallman wasn't too 'heavily' involved with Colonel Sanders. Would he even fit in the Army barber's chair, let alone me wondering if the Army Corps of Engineers will be needed to cut through the forest of hair on RMS.

      --

      "More organs means more human." - Zim

    3. Re:Two words: Colonel Stallman by DARKFORCE123 · · Score: 0
      Yeah, well I am not going to take orders from someone who never showers.

      Like Stallman could be in the military anyways. He would have to learn hygiene.

  147. Robots Are Expensive by Vagary · · Score: 1

    Who do you think is going to build and maintain those very small robots?

    But seriously, the problem is that it's cheaper to pay for the college educations of cannon fodder than invest in the R&D to produce technology to lower the bodybags. The Pentagon have done careful cost-benefit analysis and they only spend as much as they need to on protecting US lives. The rest is spent on shock&awe, because that's way cooler.

  148. You can't draft us... by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

    You can't draft us, we all moved to India. Assholes.

    1. Re:You can't draft us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can still draft you. And whats more if you check they can even draft resident aliens....

      The fact that you are in India is irrelevent. You won't be sought out in India but you can NEVER return to the US, and trust me at some point you will want to for some reason or another come home very badly.

      Unless recruitment changes significantly they are going to have to reinstitute the draft or come up with one of the other options to maintain force strength like offering US citizenship to aliens for joining.

  149. I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

    SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    ===

    The draft sure sounds like "involuntary servitude" to me. To hell with this country of idiots.

    Ignore/mod down if you want. I'm mad as hell at this shitty country.

    1. Re:I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Nice try. The 13th Amendment has been interpreted to specifically not include serving on juries or being drafted by the military for over 100 years. These are part of your duties as a citizen. Do a Google search on "13th Amendment" and "military."

      2. Leave. Bye. See ya. Good riddance, coward.

    2. Re:I hate this country by Myrrh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Put your money where your mouth is and leave, if you're so pissed off. Perhaps there's a country somewhere that won't ask you to do a thing to contribute. Maybe.

      I bet you don't vote, either. Nah, that'd be too much like "involuntary servitude," to go to the polls for all of a half an hour once a year, right?

      You know, one of the things I love best about this country is that, although you are guaranteed the right to mouth off about how shitty you think the country is, I also have the right to tell you to shut the hell up or leave.

      And I am right now.

    3. Re:I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Uncle Sam-lover. Regardless of any "interpretations" made by our corrupt government, it is still a FACT that the draft is illegal (and, may I add, so is jury duty), thanks to the 13th amendment. We've been brainwashed to think otherwise so that our corrupt government can use and abuse us any way they want.

      Bye.

    4. Re:I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, they all come out and spout the same garbage every time someone speaks out about the government that has brainwashed them and rewarded them for their loyalty.

      First, I'd love to leave. Problem is, I don't have the money to. It takes money to move, ya know, and many countries require that you have quite a bit in the bank above that. Therefore, I'm stuck here.

      Secondly, I'm not forced to vote, so how the hell could that be "involuntary servitude"?

      Third, yeah, you do. And I have the right to say it right back :)

    5. Re:I hate this country by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      You didn't say a word about hating the government. You said you hated this country. There's a fine but critical distinction.

      I have no love for President Bush and a lot of his staff's policies and antics either. However, I do love my country.

      And, uh, I have no intention of leaving. I like it here. Things need a little tweaking now and then, but overall it's a great place.

      Sure beats a lot of the alternatives.

    6. Re:I hate this country by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      Don't you think "corrupt government" is all but redundant?

      I defy you to give me an example of any government, anywhere, at any time, that did not have at least *some* corruption.

      Why not get into politics? Try to change things from the ground up? You sound like someone who could make a difference, if only you can stay pissed off for long enough.

    7. Re:I hate this country by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Coward"

      Posted by "Anonymous Coward".

      Next time, post under "Anonymous Asshole".

      See ya, asshole.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:I hate this country by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      And I have the right to tell you to fuck off.

      BECAUSE this country is so shitty. And because people like you are the ones making it shitty.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    9. Re:I hate this country by ElizabethP · · Score: 1
      I was once told something very frustrating by an asshole who plans on going into politics , "Politicians are bred, they aren't discovered." That is, certain people are raised to be politicians from the time they can walk and talk. They are put through the seminars, the leadership programs, yadda yadda. This, in my opinion, leads to political stagnation.

      I refuse to believe this. I understand that in politics, there is a game to be played, but that does not stop me from wanting to initiate change by working with and through the system.

    10. Re:I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is anybody listening?

      fuck you nigganiggafuck you nigga fuck fukc younigganigganigganigganigga

      i hope you get aids.

    11. Re:I hate this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I bet you don't vote, either

      Voting is not an obligation, but a privilege.

      Nobody forces you to vote.
    12. Re:I hate this country by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      It should be an obligation.

  150. Re:Equal Opportunity! by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    Women are drafted in Israel but they need every warm body they can get. I think they are drafted for a shorter period though.

    Women won't be drafted because it would be political suicide to have women coming back in body bags in an undeclared war that half or more of the country disagrees with.

    As for the issues of rape, I think there is a lot more to worry about with rape by our own troops than by the enemy. Islamic thinking on rape is pretty strict. Lynch was almost definitely not raped or beaten by her captors, that was just a story that was told to the media to give them something to go on. And I might add that if she weren't a little white girl from Lynchburg no one would give a shit because several black women were captured in Iraq and no one gave two shits about them. They don't have any ghostwritten books out or movie deals. You can't very well make a movie about being treated nicely by the hated enemy can you?

  151. Bingo! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    It's obvious that not just the draft, but even enlisting, is a form of slavery, and by all rights ought to be declared unconstitutional. No other job lets you sign a contract whereby you can't quit your job for four years. It's one thing to say you can't walk away in the middle of a firefight, but when you can't even walk away in peacetime, it's just slavery by a different name.

    Yet courts have consistently ruled that military necessity trumps the constitution. I figure sooner or later that will change, and I for one will be glad for it, but it won't happen any time soon.

    Furthermore, why does everyone think the draft was ok, even necessary, during WW II? Seems to me, if a war is popular, you don't need the draft. It's only unpopular wars that you have to force people to join the army by threat of going to prison. I'd much rather have the threat of soldiers quitting be the main protection against unpopular wars. Get rid of that 4 year slavery signup, get rid of the draft.

    (I volunteered for 4 years in the navy, many years ago, had a great time floating around the Pacific, just in case anyone thinks it pertinent.)

    1. Re:Bingo! by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Enlisting is not covered under the 13th amendment because the amendment doesn't cover voluntary servitude just involuntary. If you sign up for the military you are agreeing to certain conditions. You are not forced to accept it, it is your choice. Also, you are allowed to quit early (under the agreed upon conditions of course), but the military will want the money they gave you when you enlisted back. It's like breaking any oithe contract.

      Also, going to jail is not the only way to avoid the draft, there are things like national service for objectors and pacifists. Also, sometimes though you have to do things you don't want to do for the benifit of everyone else. It's not a very libertarian/conservative argument, but sometimes it's the truth. Besides if you are that opposed to war, serving time in jail should be no problem to show how much you are opposed to it.

    2. Re:Bingo! by mark-t · · Score: 1
      They can get out of the "slavery" analogy by stating that it *IS* voluntary... that one can always choose to refuse the draft, but to do so is to voluntary revoke all benefits of being an american citizen, which could result in deportation, unemployment, and other less than ideal conditions.

      Nobody's twisting your arm _forcing_ you to be an American citizen, therefore the draft is voluntary.

    3. Re:Bingo! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your argument is comepletely bogus on two grounds. The first is that most American citizens are born that way. The second is that you don't understand the word "voluntary". The choice "Your money or your life" does not describe a voluntary situation, and the fact that the government is holding the gun does not change the nature of the situation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Bingo! by zenyu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody's twisting your arm _forcing_ you to be an American citizen, therefore the draft is voluntary.

      Not everyone has the option to take up another citizenship. Some people are shit out of luck in that department. Though I think I would enjoy my time in prison for refusing a draft; that's the most honorable way out of a compulsary service requirement. No one can accuse you of joining the national guard to get out of a draft if you spend a few years in the hole for your country. There is simply no other way to emerge from a period of unjust war with your honor completely intact. You can try to repair it after serving in the military like Kerry did, but that's just window dressing. Every innocent man, woman and child your service killed will never come back. You have to refuse service and refuse taxes and do your jail time for it, until your country is out of the mess, if you want to be able to say you are a patriot without further dishonoring yourself with a lie.

      Not that I'm much for nationalism these days, I would go 'hiking in Maine' long before my number came up.

    5. Re:Bingo! by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Of course I understand the word "voluntary"... the point that I was attempting to make (which seems to have eluded most people) is that with a little bit of creative stretching of the truth, the gov't can still make itself seem on the up and up.

      People who were citizens by virtue of being born in the USA would not get deported, of course, but they could find themselves unable to secure work as easily as actual citizens (because job preference could reasonably be given to citizens). This wouldn't make it impossible to find work, just a whole lot harder.

    6. Re:Bingo! by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      Isn't is also true, though, that whenever you go to prison you lose your rights to vote as well as others?

      So going to prison is even *less* of a choice, if you want to ever be patriotic in the future. Depending on your definitions.

      8-PP

  152. Certifiably insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Yes... being insane helps too. Though at least two of my hallucinations would like me to join the military.

    Posting AC because I'm telling the truth,

    AC

  153. furk that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would go to jail. at this point, i'd rather take it up the ass in jail then further support this country's military. i simply, and firmly believe this country's military bloat is grotesque, not to mention these computer people will very probably be working on shit like carnivore, and other espionage systems which will more than likely make it eavesdrop on citizens, either directly or indirectly. i love th is country, but man, i do not like the way its been going lately, and people need to stand up for what they believe.

  154. Intel Implies Content by Vagary · · Score: 1

    And so you're criticising them because in a few years time, when the bad guys are from Slovakia and Karjakistan, they'll be running around trying to find enough Slavic language speakers, right? I mostly agree although I have to ask: what did you expect them to have you do until then? Translate love letters sent by the Karjakian ambassador?

    1. Re:Intel Implies Content by _Sambo · · Score: 1

      Your point is well taken. Yeah, I was just whining.

  155. Re:Equal Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey pussy, the draft has been discriminating much longer than this current war has been going on. There goes your theory.

  156. Gang warfare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I see the military as a stellar way to stop breathing before age 30. "

    So's joining a gang, and people join those all the time.

  157. They can flee, we can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Jimmy Carter signed the amnesty for draft dogers, he also signed a treaty with Canada that requires them to send those yellow-bellies back to the US. We have to send their draft-dodgers back to Canada as well.

    Newsflash: Neither country has a draft right now so this doesn't mean squat.

    Mexico is another story. "Officially," we have to send their fugitives back to them and ours have to be returned to us. It doesn't necessarily happen that way. BTW, illegal aliens are irrelevant to this argument.

    This has been irrelevant anyway since there has been no draft for over 30 years. Won't be again for many more years either.

    This is a "just-in-case" idea. Nobody is seriously proposing starting the draft again anyway other than leftist Democrats like Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Foghorn Leghorn-oops-Fritz Hollings (D-Disney).

  158. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  159. good by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:good by pla · · Score: 0, Troll

      2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.

      You almost certainly meant that as a troll, but, I'll bite...

      Damned lot of good those "skills" will do a corpse. And before you say that this wouldn't necessarily mean going off to war, I'd point out that in GW1, Afghanistan, and GW2, more people died before and after primary combat, than during.

      Suggestions like this absolutely sicken me. Forcing someone to join a group of government sanctioned murderers against their will, in my book, counts as one of most "evil" acts possible. Ted Bundy had nothing on Rumsfeld.


      And I don't write this just because it means I may well end up drafted - I would have a hard choice to make, between moving to Canada or going in willingly with the goal of rooting and taking down as many military systems as I could (as Thomas Hobbes wrote, "The prisoner being led to death by his jailers has the right and obligation to resist with whatever force is necessary". If, in such a situation, it took the complete subversive dismantlement of the US military's IT infrastructure, so it goes).

      Disgusting, pure and simple. If you want to join, good for you. If so few people want to go off to die that the government needs to institute a draft, well, I can think of no better indication that we should not go off to "see the world, meet interesting people and kill them".


      And just for the record, spare me the trouble of invoking Godwin's law. Yes, sometimes war appears justified - Though only to defend against an immediate mortal threat to one's self.

    2. Re:good by dbIII · · Score: 1
      2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.
      Years ago, one of my University lecturers told me about his compulsory military service in South Africa - one year of service after he had completed his doctorate. Within a couple of days he had organised the paperwork to teach a non-existant subject to non-existant people with a non-existant superior officer. He spent the whole year reading papers when he should have been out in the townships shooting black people from an armoured car.

      Military duty taught him forgery.

    3. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 years of slave duty might teach our nations emerging negroes a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness

  160. Michael by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Just imagine the Slashdot editors being drafted.

    One can only dream...

  161. Analogies and perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Administering antibiotics is killing organisms, and genocide is killing organisms--so following your simpleminded logic I guess doctors are the same as Hitler, right?

    To a bacterium, yes.
  162. Slick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Draft the people from a group with a high probability to vocal oponents of the current US federal government. Someone saying shit you don't like? Ship'em off to die in some hole, eat your caviar, check your bank account to make sure that $600,000 campain donation came in, then off to bed. Never mind you and your friends speciallized in worming your way out of the previous drafts.

    -AC for the agressively nationalistic.

  163. Cool - we're going to see porn on battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do I sign up? let do p2p while we're in the fox hole. Wait, can we get internet access from our fox hole?

  164. Well theres absolutely no way by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1

    i'd go in draft or not. A nice accident with my car jack should sort it.

    But the thing that I have often though about, if say it was boom time for contractors again and you got drafted onto poor pay, but had big mortgage and loans and stuff, what would happen then? does the govt pick up the bill?

  165. agread by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    the constitution says that congress may raise an army for a period of no more than 2 years. The standing army is evil and unconstitutional. Plus, people don't pay attention if it's not their son/brother/cousin/friend/husband being shipped off to some god forsaken hell hole.
    However, I do not believe in the PATRIOT Act or the Homeland Security people. We have a homeland security provision already: It is called the 2nd Amendment. I'll more than gladly join the militia, but i refuse to be forced to check bags at the airport, and i am less than enthused about the idea of going off to war outside of the country. However, I am still against the standing army and for the draft.

    1. Re:agread by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      By being of able body and a citizen of a state makes you part of the militia (but not necessarily a member of the national guard).

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  166. The draft's supposed to be blind to wealth, right? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    It's supposed to just pick the best people for the job, with (heh) no opportunity any more to pull strings to get you off?

    That means:

    1. Age shouldn't really be an issue for this.
    2. Gates! Drop and give me GOTO 10.
    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  167. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And how, exactly, do they "force" you to excercise?

    The worst they can do is throw you into prison for not cooperating... Physical torture, after all, is considered illegal in the USA.

  168. A way to get cheap programming? by Maul · · Score: 2, Troll

    Is it possible that this is a plot for the government to get cheap programmers without the appearance of the national security risk associated with outsourcing to a foreign country? Will those drafted be placed under the supervision of a "manager" who works for a major contractor?

    Or is it a way for the government to phase drafts back in, in a way that most people won't care about?

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  169. Tell them you are an Indian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that you look white/black/non-indian because of pigment problems and/or cheating parents.
    That should keep you out of the draft.

  170. I won't volunteer, but I'll go if compelled to by Myrrh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've got a family and a great job. Matter of fact, I just bought a house. I have no desire to leave these things I've worked for years to gain.

    However--as I always say when a discussion of the draft comes up--I also realize that what has enabled me to acquire a family and a house and be able to drive down the street and buy a gallon of milk for $3.00 is the fact that there are people willing to fight for those things.

    Yeah, I'm a computer person. I love computers. Computers are putting food on my table and a roof over my head. I don't want to leave if I don't have to.

    But if it ever got so bad that I was drafted, well, yeah I'd go. I'd go and fight so that others can have the same things I've been so fortunate to get. Things like freedom and happiness and generally living in a (mostly) free country.

    My sentiment is probably not popular in this day and age. But if they tell me to go, I'll go. I'm not making a run for the border.

    Myrrh

    1. Re:I won't volunteer, but I'll go if compelled to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope you go too.

    2. Re:I won't volunteer, but I'll go if compelled to by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one.

      I have no desire to leave my great job, or my wonderful house either. At a certain point I put aside some of my ideas about how a country should be run though, and accept that the best thing I can do is grab a rifle and stand to. Things don't have to be done the way I'd prefer in order for me to contribute, and I feel that if the elected government considers this country sufficiently-threatened, it's time to go.

      That doesn't mean I'll like it any better, but I'm just as much a part of the system as anybody else is, and I accept that part of being a citizen in a 'democratic' country is holding up my end of the deal. Part of that means I don't always get my way.

      Dan

    3. Re:I won't volunteer, but I'll go if compelled to by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      Well spoken. You sound a lot like a friend of mine who is in the Army Reserve, stationed as an MP at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque. He *did* have to pick up a rifle and go -- fortunately, where he went was only 75 miles away, and not clear across the world to Iraq or Afghanistan.

      As he puts it, he has to "watch the C-130s not get stolen."

      Sure beats dodging bullets, though.

  171. You don't need the military for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'd do PT"

    Why wait to be drafted to do that?

    Do it now. Get you lazy fat ass out of that chair private pyle. Do you hear me? Do you suck dick? Private pyle, I asked you a question... DO YOU SUCK DICK? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

    1. Re:You don't need the military for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why wait to be drafted to do that?

      There's no motivation. Thanks for the vigorous attempt with the private Pyle-bit, though. ;-)

      Unless you're implying that I should start practising because the draft is imminent, I'm not facing combat anytime soon and therefore I feel comfortable developing my love-handles.

  172. Re:You're all safe - esp in Canada by jesuscash · · Score: 1

    It really depends on the outfit. Where I'm at in the military, we use various OSes. Windows, Red Hat, Solaris... For the most part, the OSes with out support are shunned for obvious reasons. Most specifically if things really crap out, there's some one to fall back on. On a slight tangent, I do miss the fact that the military contracts everything out and develope very little of their own.

  173. Huh? by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
    There is already a system in place to draft health care personnel, and this system would be expanded in order to 'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists.

    Ok, I can understand this for health care personnel in case of another 9/11 scale attack... but computer specialists?

    Is it to help Homeland Security protect us by installing "telescreens" in our houses?

    Maybe I'm just being dense... which works in my favor. Thankfully I was dumb enough to go for an arts degree and mess with computers as a hobby instead of a career.

  174. Bush figured out a way to silence Slashdot! by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    Group of mouthy little left-leaning turbo geeks, no problem. Draft their ass! Brilliant! lol.

    It's easy to laugh when you're beyond the recall age.

    I don't know but I've been told, Slashdot read-ers are migh-ty bold! Sound off like you got a pair, ladies!

    In case you're interested, the address for donating the John Kerry campaign is:

    http://www.johnkerry.com/

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  175. You know how they're recruiting, right? by neolith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bet all of you who played the Army's "free game" will be sorry when this happens.

    --
    Like my comments? Try my podcast: http://www.baldmove.com
  176. Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch the kubrick movie "full metal jacket" for a taste of boot camp.

    You might want to rethink this "I'll stay overweight so they won't draft me" school of thought.

  177. Conscription? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't some treaty prevent us from conscripting Indians?

  178. Depends on the branch by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    Most of the employers I've worked for wouldn't have a problem hiring an ex-Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Army, depending on their rate/MOS. It's mostly Marines who get the reputation of being more dangerous and less useful than ex-cons.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Depends on the branch by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      wouldn't have a problem hiring an ex-Navy

      Not "having a problem" with something is a long way from seeing it as a positive, though.

  179. ERA was still before women-in-combat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the time the ERA was proposed women were only allowed in selective areas of the armed forces. It's only been very recently that women were allowed to serve in actual combat.

    So, yeah, everything's different now.

  180. The draft never stopped a war! by tarranp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when has the draft stopped a war? The only thing the draft ensures is that politically unconnected people are forced to fight and die for causes supported for the politically connected, while their kids get cushy jobs in the Air National Guard, where no one cares if they show up or not.

    The draft is slavery. I am a veteran, and I proudly volunteered. But if they were to show up claiming they had a right to my life and time - I'd go to jail first.

    1. Re:The draft never stopped a war! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I don't know, the parent had some logic in that statement.
      With a all volunteer force, you don't have "slavery"; you have people who made the decision to be part of the foreign policy of the U.S. BEING part of the foreign policy of the U.S.; with a drafted force, you have hordes of parents and military members calling attention to and protesting everything and anything they disagree with about what they are being forced to do.
      Interesting concept.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:The draft never stopped a war! by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      With a all volunteer force, you don't have "slavery"; you have people who made the decision to be part of the foreign policy of the U.S. BEING part of the foreign policy of the U.S.

      Actually those people signed up to defend the United States of America not to die in pointless wars against countries that are no threat to us. They can't speak out for themselves and are trained only to obey.

      At least you managed to note the logic of my statement. Not that I'm arguing for a return to the draft -- but I did point out exactly why it will never happen (barring some sort of "The barbarian hordes are rolling over the border" crisis): If the military was a draftee force then the neo-cons couldn't use it to build their pax-Americana.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:The draft never stopped a war! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      The actual oath goes like this:
      "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

      I was really drunk at the time, so I had to look it up, but it sounds familiar.
      So, basically, if the Prez orders you to attack canada, and you believe this is a violation of the constitution and that canada is not an enemy, you have sworn not to do it.
      You will end up in jail, though.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    4. Re:The draft never stopped a war! by TerryMathews · · Score: 1

      The only thing the draft ensures is that politically unconnected people are forced to fight and die for causes supported for the politically connected, while their kids get cushy jobs in the Air National Guard, where no one cares if they show up or not.
      Just keep in mind that's a bi-partisan street. Wartime photographer is about as cushy as you can get.

      --
      -- Terry
    5. Re:The draft never stopped a war! by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      So, basically, if the Prez orders you to attack canada, and you believe this is a violation of the constitution and that canada is not an enemy, you have sworn not to do it.

      Exactly. This is why I had no sympathy for Ollie North. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. That comes first and foremost. If the President gives you an order that violates the Constitution then you don't obey it.

      You will end up in jail, though.

      Yeah your probably right. But if your going to go to jail for doing what's wrong or going to go to jail for doing what's right you might as well go for doing what was right. That's how I look at the Ollie North situation (and those like it) -- if you are damned if you do or damned if you don't then you might as well be damned for doing the right thing. He did not.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  181. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " And how, exactly, do they "force" you to excercise?"

    You're a guy with no right and a sadistic drill sargeant whose job it is to make you lose those 100 pounds.

    I suspect you wouldn't go to prison; you would be compelled to lose those pounds or die trying. Remember, the military has guns, they will smack you around, they will break you down and remold you.

    And if you think you'll outsmart them, keep in mind that today's military training is a result of 1000's of years of human experimentation on how to make good soldiers.

    You are a young boy who hasn't been able to wipe your ass for 20 years. I suspect thousands of years of experience gives them an edge in ways you're not capable of.

    Look sonny, just lose the weight. It will be easier now than with a drill sargeant beating you down.

  182. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, they will charge you criminally. If you have a family to support or really don't want to be ass-rammed in a military prison (yes they still make large rocks into small ones), then you might decide to do the excercise. Also, some people want to do something with their lives after they are out of the military and having a military conviction is the same as a felony.

  183. Overheard During Draft Proposal Planning by chaoticset · · Score: 1
    "We lack linguists and computer geeks...is there some reason smart people don't want to get shot at or blown to pieces?"


    I guess it's a good thing I have virtually no actual IT work experience. If they ever get so desperate that tech support personnel are in high demand, they deserve me.

    --

    -----------------------
    You are what you think.
  184. The real reason we invaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Within the bush administration there is a feeling (was) that Iraq was the only power in the middle east capable of threatening Isreal.

    The thinking was that if the palestineans and muslims understood that Isreal had all the guns they would be forced to finally negotiate in good faith.

    I'm not saying they were right, I'm just telling you the thought process up there in Fantasy Island (aka White House).

  185. off shored? by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

    Exactly how will they get at all those Indian programmers?

  186. You're already giving a lot by melted · · Score: 1

    Did you file this year's taxes? Don't feed me this loyalty shit. I'm loyal up to the minute when I'm forced to be loyal.

  187. DoD sends out draft notices to all Steam user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what you get for still playing counterstrike you loads. bwahahah

  188. This isn't about expanding the standing military by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The draft isn't allowed for that. The US doesn't do normal military conscription where everyone goes into military service for a time. That is falling out of practice most everywhere. France did away with conscription around 2000, Germany is working on getting rid of it as well. Countries are facing the fact that in modren wars, you need technology to win and conscripts aren't the ones you want to put in a jet.

    The US doesn't have conscription, except in times of emergency, eg the draft. Congress has to activate it and there has to be a reason, not just because we need a bigger military.

    This is a contingency plan. It's what our miliraty planners do. I mean let's say that we got into a war with someone like China. Now I know realisticaly it would probably go nuclear, but suppose it didn't (planning requires thinking for all endpoints). Well we are going to need more people than our military has to fight and win, so we'll need a draft.

    However with our military as it is now, we'll need people with special technical skills. Thing is the draft was mostly setup to just get people in, give them basic training, and then send them out as infantry. This is not what is now needed. We need to identify technical people, put them on a technical fast track, and get them into technical support positions.

    Is this really going to happen? Almost certianly not. However, having plans in place is how you prepare for the unexpected. Our military planners do this all the time with all sorts of long-shot scenarios. The idea being, in the highly unlikely, but potentially catastrophic, occurance of one of those scenarios, we aren't caught unprepaired. We have a plan, a system, and can start fighting back.

    In a war just HAVING a plan is the most important thing. It might not be the best plan, but just about any plan is better than no plan.

  189. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by ilsa · · Score: 1

    20yrs - 44 yrs?! I thought the draft was for 19 year olds! This is really scary stuff.

    Welcome to the exciting world of being a trained professional. There's no such thing as a 19 year old with 10 years industry experience (1337 hax0ring does not count).

    Computer experts are not the only ones with a longer than average draft eligibility. Doctors can be drafted until they are 35 (assuming there is a draft at all).

    --
    -- I Am Not A Terrorist.
  190. Uh oh by Imperator · · Score: 1

    I wonder who read them out to him. And explained them.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  191. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1

    Man, nothing to nitpick about in your post. And you're an AC.

  192. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by MetalMorph · · Score: 1

    Actually, they'll do everything short of aggrivated assault. They certainly won't shoot you. They might pull out a gun with blanks in it to scare you into submission, but you won't be shot full of holes if you fail.

    --
    My words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
  193. Your government promises full employment! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 3, Funny
    Rejoice, citizens!

    Thanks to the economic benefits of imperial war, you can soon return to the jobs that major US corporations regrettably had to ship overseas to boost their CEOs' and shareholders' profits. Those profits simply were not high enough after a decade of record earnings! Now that our economy is unable to provide jobs, we will create jobs by fighting for, er, freedom!

    Outsourcing was a painful lesson; we understand. But with our exciting new insourcing, you'll be right back doing what you're used to - writing software, patching Microsoft technology, and answering basic user questions (but politely this time, or we'll have to mercilessly beat you, ha ha!). Heck, we'll even throw in room and board. Can Starbucks give you that?

    Now, you're asking: O Mighty and Glorious Leader Bush, what do I have to do to make myself more deserving? At ease, citizen. Remember: the Enemy is everywhere, and he has no respect for frequent backups or the single-OS monopoly that is the foundation of our free society. Keep your shoes shined and your trap shut, and we'll be in touch when the time comes to fight for the CEOs!

  194. No worries... by raehl · · Score: 1

    What the article doesn't mention is that they'll all come from India.

  195. Looks like I picked the wrong week... by Mr.+Foofy · · Score: 1

    ...to quit wearing women's clothing.

  196. Indeed.... by raehl · · Score: 1

    I'm updating my resume to highlight my fast-food skills right now.

  197. Fight Selective Service by n3tkUt · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are 4 or 5 comments I wanted to drop these links into, I'll just stick them out here.

    "We see the direct link between registration, the draft, and aggressive war."

    "Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft"

    "Help Oppose Hollins and Rangel's Draft!"

    No I am not a Liberitarian, but they have some interesting points on this issue. I remember being freaked out about registering for the "SS" when I was 18. -Scared of being forced to fight somebody elses war if I did... and horrified of the things they said would happen if I did not (not qualifying for school loans being one of them).

    1. Re:Fight Selective Service by anubi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      We studied the draft in a Microeconomics class here at college.

      Interesting thing.

      We were studying supply and demand, and the relationships in a Free Enterprise System. Demand is paid-for transfer of goods from seller to buyer when both agree on price. If you want a product bad enough, and if you are capable and willing to pay enough for it, some seller will generate a supply. Thats just how the system works. Sure, there are workarounds for the system, like simply taking it if you want it, and we call it theft and extortion. Note how the government has passed all sorts of law to protect the owners of intellectual property lately.

      So, one way of looking at a draft is imposing a severe tax on some of the population based on whatever criteria they choose because the demander ( government ) of the resource ( someone else's time and labor ) refuses to negotiate for it, and simply uses a gun to achieve his objectives.

      If the free enterprise system, which this country is supposedly based on, is supposed to work, the rights of all, not just some, have to be respected. How can Congress say downloading music or copying software is bad, yet think its OK to commit widespread theft of "factors of production" by invoking a draft? If they need soldiers, PAY for them. Up the salary enough, people will join. Need specialized skills? Compete the same way everyone else has to. I wish Congress could tell me just what is the American Way to fill a need.. negotiate for it, or just use a gun.

      That damn draft kept me uncomfortable the whole time I went through adolescence. Although I lucked out on the "lottery", it did drive in just how wrong it was to force ones way at gunpoint. I know the current regime likes to have a lot of prayer breakfasts, but actions like this say a lot more than strings of words ending in "amen."

      It just seems to me that we are no better than the ones we fight, if we use the same tactics to enforce compliance with the dictator's rulings.

      The government has already shown in my mind very poor fiscal policy by lowering the federal funds rate to such riduculous lows and causing our dollar to become cheap. It places rewards on those who live beyond their means by ensuring they pay back less value than they borrowed, and it damn nearly assures all the working wage-slaves out there that they will probably never be able to afford their own home. Did wages track the the resultant spike in housing and fuel prices as the market achieved a new price point equilibrium reflecting the new inflated value of the dollar?

      Most likely, all working people received an effective wage cut, as they keep getting paid numerically yesterdays wage. It makes way for an endless spiral of "raises" just to stay where we are, invisibly pushing us up into higher and higher tax rate brackets. No wonder our employers can't afford us anymore.

      Any monetary assets people were saving for retirement are effectively diminshed. And they don't even allow us with retirement accounts to write off the effect of the inflation against the interest on the account. And we wonder why the US has such a low saving rate?

      I honestly believe I have been cursed by an old Chinese curse... "May you live in interesting times." I believe the door is just opening now for some real lulus.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    2. Re:Fight Selective Service by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      If things became so bad that they needed to start drafting people, there really isn't anything you can do about. Sure you could go to Canada but the war we proabably be there as well.

    3. Re:Fight Selective Service by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 1

      I wish Congress could tell me just what is the American Way to fill a need.. negotiate for it, or just use a gun.

      I'd posit that the American Way is to get what you want. At some point there was a rumour about adding 'by hard work' in there, or maybe something about Freedom, but I'm not sure the base definition I've offered is all that far off from the reality of the situation.

      I'm going to have to think on that a bit more.

      Dan

  198. No more CS graduates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First we're going to punish you by shipping your job to India. But we really think you are valuable, so we're going to draft your ass, put you in uniform, and send you to the middle east to get shot at.

    Does the US government seriously think that there will be any CS graduates in four years with this kind of stupidity coming from Washington?

    If all you IT people out there don't become Democrats now, there's no hope for you!

  199. That's a total lie! by raehl · · Score: 1

    If there's one place on the planet there aren't any Americans in tents maintaining tanks, it's Syria.

    1. Re:That's a total lie! by Ugmo · · Score: 1

      I said you might find yourself. As in, IF this draft goes into effect and IF you get drafted then MAYBE we would be in a war and in such a hypothetical case that war could be in Syria.

      The war could be in Hawaii or Las Vegas but Syria is more likely and would be more uncomfortable than Syria.

      P.S.
      I also mentioned Syria as this is one of the countries that were causing trouble in the recent past and which the US doesn't seem to have worked out a deal. Pakistan seems to be cooperating by giving out info about how it helped other countries to develope Nukes. Libya is revealing all its WMD programs. Iran is letting in Nuke inspectors. I guess the war could be in France. So read that sentence as doing tank maintenance in a tent in France

    2. Re:That's a total lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are numerous factors that affect who is on the list to be liberated next. Not the least of which would be the presidential election.

      As far as I can currently tell, it is something like...
      1. Iran
      2. Syria
      3. North Korea
      4. Canada
  200. With the AF downsizing, draft unlikely by jokerghost · · Score: 1

    The AF is just beginning to downsize some 16,000 AF jobs. Why, then, would they implement a draft? The whole notion seems so unlinkely as to be incredulous! Here's a good link... and yes, I am in the AF. However being an intel geek, I'm not elegible for the downsizing.

    I get the feeling this'll never get read, but really, people need to check their facts before they start crying "wolf!!"

    -jokerghost

    1. Re:With the AF downsizing, draft unlikely by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      The Air Force and Marines have better luck than the other services. The Marines tend to get the ones that are looking for a challenge- and being the smallest makes it even easier to fill all the seats. The Air Force gets the ones who want college money and tech training since its the easiest.

      The Army and the Navy are a bit screwed. Not enough of a percieved challenge to get the hardcore warrior types, but too many percieved challenges to draw the ones that just want some easy college money and some training.

  201. Are they trying to turn USA into Israel or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, answered my own question. Hope those kids like to play in the sand. One wonders what all those middle-eastern linguists - most of whom I'd presume will be middle-eastern themselves - will think of their new jobs.

  202. Watch our Cuba we're coming for you next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah we know you have something there and we'll need all these IT people to rebuild your country and i need the s miami vote bad.
    Or maybe Vatican City your next. Wait Pat & Jerry says thats a bad idea so we won't go there...

  203. The Army Wants YOU! by jefu · · Score: 1
    Except, of course, if you are gay.

    Note that one of the areas where they want talent is linguists (and specifically arabic speakers).

    Remember that just prior to the current conflict, all the openly gay arabic speakers in the military were tossed out. A CNN story on the matter

  204. What MOS? by wiredog · · Score: 1

    I was a 31K, as you can see from my username.

    1. Re:What MOS? by superdan2k · · Score: 1

      74C and 31C while on active duty. Switched to 96B for Reserves/Guard.

      --
      blog |
    2. Re:What MOS? by ChoMomma · · Score: 1

      29S / 35E here! I still can't understand how signal MOS's got put under Ordinance..

    3. Re:What MOS? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      74C and 31C while on active duty. Switched to 96B for Reserves/Guard.

      Heh. I picked 98C (SIGINT Analyst) 'cause I figured I had a good chance of ending up with a cushy strategic job. I ended up assigned to the Pukin' Buzzards (101stABN) in mid 1990. I'm still trying to wash the grit out of my mouth and get all the sand dumped out of my boots.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  205. Conscienceous objecter by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    I'm a Mac and sometimes Linux evangelist. Will that get me out?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Conscienceous objecter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, but the implied homosexuality of being a Mac evangelist will :).

      ~~~

    2. Re:Conscienceous objecter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have to pass a spelling test first.

    3. Re:Conscienceous objecter by Mr_Cheeky · · Score: 0

      They will make a father raping, mother killing, baby burning man out of you. And a Windows user. Now drop and give me 50!

  206. Re:Physical Requirement and Basic Training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military sets these requirements for safety. Even though you may be setting up a network tens to hundreds of miles from combat, the place could still get hit. If you got injured would you have the physical strength to carry yourself to safety. Even if you had the strength, how many men would be required to take you out of danger if you were knocked out.

  207. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this is one way to handle the loss of jobs due to outsourcing overseas - draft all the unemployed IT people!

    Think of it: If it can be rushed through, the Bush administration can then claim responsibility for the largest decrease in unemployment in the IT industry in history, just in time for the election.

    *grin*

  208. Charlton Heston is GAY!?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You learn something new every day.

    1. Re:Charlton Heston is GAY!?? by Charlton+Heston · · Score: 1

      Not currently gay, but in the grand scheme of things I am MORE afraid of bullets than I am afraid of other men's hairy asses. Plus with the way television is going it could be a nice career move.

      --
      Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
  209. Raise the age limits? by wiredog · · Score: 1
    As a 38 year old geek, who was in the Army for 3 years, let me say that that is a bad idea. OK, some people my age can get into shape to run 6 miles at a 7 minute mile pace, or carry a 70 lb combat load 10 miles cross country and fight a battle at the end of it, without slowing down the other people in the platoon. But not many. As the body ages, even if you've taken care of it, it becomes somewhat less robust than it was when you were a teenager.

    And one thing Iraq and 9/11 have shown is that there are NO "safe rear area jobs".

  210. Re:*bzzt* Wrong, completely by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
    The "bachelor's degree" = "officer" assertion hasn't been true since the seventies. Of the eight people I went through basic and AIT with, five had their B.S., in engineering, physics, physical therapy, and english (2). None of us were officers.
    Sorry, but you are not quite right. If you had enlisted folks with degrees, that means they either chose not to be officers, or didn't meet the other requirements in some fashion. A degree means you are eligible to be an officer, not that you are automatically made one.
  211. Solution.. by jcr · · Score: 1

    1) get drafted
    2) crack a windoze box and make yourself a colonel.
    3) assign yourself to Fiji.
    4) wait for the war to end.
    5) crack another windoze box and sign yourself up for twenty or thirty colonel's pensions.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Solution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6) Some discovers your rather hefty pension and reports you
      7) Court Martial
      8) Welcome to Guantanumo Bay (and you're not going to help run the place, if thats what you're thinking)

    2. Re:Solution.. by jcr · · Score: 1

      6) Some discovers your rather hefty pension and reports you
      ..if they're all in the same name! Duh!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  212. Heh. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    I'm an Ada programmer; I'm the last person they'll want!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Heh. by MCZapf · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? Ada was developed under the direction of the Department of Defense for the Department of Defense. I'm not sure what the policy is today, but for a while, it was the language you had to use if you were developing a system from scratch.

    2. Re:Heh. by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      I think slashdot needs an "It's funny, laugh" icon for posts.

  213. I don't have a problem with this.... by raehl · · Score: 1

    As long as *EVERYBODY* has to do it. It's like that in most countries - you have to do a year or two of three of service, whether it be in the military or civilian sector (i.e. help at hospitals or some such). It builds character. It makes the world a better place. And if everybody has to do it, it doesn't put certain people who don't have to do it at an advantage, and it doesn't penalize people for getting the skills to make them valuable.

    Drafting people with computer skills alone is stupid. You may be able to do it for a year or two, but once you start, nobody is going to go into the computer sector anymore because they don't want to be drafted, so you'll just have a country which suddenly isn't producing any new programmers. Yeah, that's a brilliant long-term strategy.

    1. Re:I don't have a problem with this.... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      maybe they should draft everyone in India then ;-)

    2. Re:I don't have a problem with this.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Doing the same evil to everyone does not make the act not evil. That drafting everyone might build their character is irrelevant to the fact that you are violating their rights. That it makes the world a better place is a false claim; the U.S.A. was founded on (among other things) the proposition that a large standing army in peacetime is wrong. Forced civilian service is a clear evil; the free market has been shown time and again to be the best director of human effort.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:I don't have a problem with this.... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Drafting people with computer skills alone is stupid. You may be able to do it for a year or two, but once you start, nobody is going to go into the computer sector anymore because they don't want to be drafted, so you'll just have a country which suddenly isn't producing any new programmers.
      No problem, the Universities in India produce some really good ones with perfect english. It's all just a sign that the profession is being devalued.
    4. Re:I don't have a problem with this.... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Funny this, where I come from they finally got rid of the draft because they were building alcoholics and junkies instead of characters. There is only so much boredom a human can be forced into until he will become a dependable^H^H^H^Hent citizen.

  214. you missed the point - draft young computer geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bwaahahahaaaa!!

    Us old computer turds have control of the computers used in the draft and are now going to conscript all you young'uns to fight the good fight for us, while we stay back here in the good ole USA sippin' Starbucks, drawing high salaries and rewriting your Java web apps in COBOL.NET!!

    Semper Fi and Y2K forever!

  215. Re:draftees? running computers? by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, draftees ran them in previous wars, so what's the difference? You could make the same argument about draftees turning the keys together in the missile silos or performing open heart surgery. It's just how it works.

    Maybe the opposite argument is more compelling: do you really want a bunch of volunteers who all think this is a really good idea running your operations? Isn't that like have a team trainer who has money on the game evaluating whether a player's health and career are at risk by going back in? Jimmy Carter thought it dubious; and that's why he (probably the most anti-war president in decades) reinstituted draft registration

    I'd rather have press-ganged specialists who are experts and bring a professional set of ethics than a bunch of gung-hos who got their jobs because of a bureaucratic assignment after basic.

  216. Care to read what I posted? by gr3y · · Score: 1

    Because that's exactly what I said: "degree" != "officer".

    k? thx. bye.

    --
    Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
  217. As a Canadian by boudie · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to say that people get the government they deserve (snicker, snicker, snicker).

  218. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

    If you're too fat, at some level I'm sure the military won't bother with you.

    But is 100 pounds overweight enough? Maybe you should start eating harder, add on one or two hundred pounds.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  219. If you want to avoid the draft ... by pherris · · Score: 1
    ... might I suggest you start smoking cool, refreshing marijuana? "It gets you high and a 'bye' from the draft!"

    Wow, I guess marijuana does save lives.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    1. Re:If you want to avoid the draft ... by Parker51 · · Score: 1

      ... might I suggest you start smoking cool, refreshing marijuana? "It gets you high and a 'bye' from the draft!"

      Nice try, but it probably won't work. A current example of why it won't is that the Iowa National Guard elected to deploy troops that had tested positive for drugs, including methamphetamines. Their commanding officers concluded that they had only used drugs to avoid deployment to Iraq, and their avoidance of service would punish those in their unit that stayed clean. Furthermore, these offenders will face a worst-of-both-worlds scenario, where they will deploy for combat service AND they will be punished once they get home. Whether their discharges will be adminstrative, or as a result of a conviction from court martial, that will be a heck of a thing to explain to a future employer.

      If the U.S. is in such need of warm bodies for a future national emergency, they would very likely overlook current drug use, unless there was evidence of habitual use, such as a record of convictions or serious medical problems. Such a draftee would be given the same offer given to smokers. You will go cold turkey for Uncle Sam! In the case of drugs, if you use them again while on active duty, you will face prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If convicted, you will have a serious criminal record that will follow you into civilian life. If the Iowa Guard example above is any indication, you will be given an opportunity to avoid prosecution by dying for your country first.

  220. if only canada did this by Cynikal · · Score: 1

    im sick of working $9/hr jobs with no job security and little to no benifits.. i'd join the air force in a heart beat, but i'd never pass their entry requirements..

    now if on the other hand they drafted me.. hello 45k(+)/year job + full benefits + affordable housing + job security + pension + way more stuff than my shitty private sector jobs...

    1. Re:if only canada did this by PaperTie · · Score: 1

      They'd probably work you until you could pass the entry requirements ;)

    2. Re:if only canada did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You over estimate life in the military...

      by a lot. :(

  221. Re:Given me? Like war, pesitilence and famine? by black88 · · Score: 0

    Nice post, couldn't agree more.

  222. That's just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't join now if you're over 35 even with prior military experience. There are a lot of reasons why the military doesn't want people older than that as new recruits.

    Please stop hyperventilating. The military doesn't want a draft because draftees are way less motivated than volunteers and are accordingly less useful.

  223. Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I wished I'd never filled out all those returns.

  224. Correct. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The PNAC agenda + our current military status = the draft.

    Its like the lottery, except when you win you lose. Don't like it? Kick out Bush and his PNAC buddies.

    1. Re:Correct. by thirdrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't like it? Kick out Bush and his PNAC buddies.

      What makes you think that the PNAC loons are only into Republicans?

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    2. Re:Correct. by Freshman+WRHS · · Score: 1

      If you think that kicking Bush out of office is going to make the posability of a draft go away than you are deeply mistaken my friend. Also I hate to hear such comments as, have your kids drop out of highschool so they don,t get drafted. People like this make me sick, because they don't have the balls to serve there country when it needs them they sceem to want to drag other people into cowardlyness with them and as far as I am concerned if you can't serve youre country and with pride you don't belong here.

  225. Would Canada really offer asylum? by sa-thigpen · · Score: 0

    My understanding is Canadian leadership has drifted to the right (well, the U.S. right) in recent years, a far cry from the progressive leadership of Kim Campbell (featured on Real Time w/Bill Maher last night), and Chretien and now Martin are essentially in bed with the Bush Adminstration.

    Well, in Canada right is left, and left is right, well usually: Campbell was a progressive conservative, and Martin and Chretien are liberal, whatever that means. I guess like the French, this is their way of retaining a cultural identity: security through obscurity.

    So, though I risk sitting in a prison cell for even writing this, I will digress:

    Options for ~legal International "dodging"

    Canada: Unlikely (see above).

    EU (European Union): Good, if you have a reasonable amount of $$$, and the French are down with it. Some connections are probably necessary, and you most likely end up doing the "tour", France, Switzerland, Belgium, etc., jumping every 90 days or so.

    Ocean: Cool, but skill is key, something not entirely lacking in the hacker community. Not everyone can pull out the ocean worthy P-Sub out from their garage and declare themselves "a man without a country".

    U.S. Free Cities: Similar to the gay marriage debacle. Cities like San Francisco would declare themselves "Draft Free Zones", repeating what they did during Vietnam. Shaky, you could easily be tracked down and imprisoned by the gestapo in a situation like this.

    3rd World Countries: Risky. Associating with a bunch of people that aren't all white men will quickly get you labelled as collaborating with terrorists.

    Antarctica: Tough, considering the entire "continent of peace" is patrolled by U.S. Warships, but probably worth a try.

    SA Thigpen *KL1FE* http://sthigpen.freeshell.org

  226. Their also searching for Arabic speakers. by pherris · · Score: 1

    "All those whose parents were not born in the US and speak Arabic, Kurdish, Pashtu, Dari, Persian and Turkic please step forward. We have a nice station for you call 'Port Chicago'."

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  227. Hey, its one way to get work by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Hey, it one way to get work with all of the offshoring.

    Steve

    1. Re:Hey, its one way to get work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. If you had any shred of talent, you'd be able to get a job. Your problems have very little to do with offshoring.

  228. a draft, seriously ? by bsdcow · · Score: 1

    very interesting move. while what did happen to the world trade center was pretty bad, for now it's mainly the volunteer us forces that went into "war" against terrorism. but thinking about a draft even just for specialized people means a lot for the civilian life out there. i wonder how i would react if my own country (france) would go back to draft (we're only out of it since a few years no more). having a draft in a country fighting for its way of life is, i feel, a really different situation than the current one in the US. the main reason for which it has been stopped in france is most people think a professional army like the US one would give better results than trying to spend time on people to see them leave after 1 or 2 monthes once they're ready to serve (it takes near a year just to get a base grunt). and a lot of young people in france could avoid it using various methods so only the not very rich and influent ones would have to serve for 10 monthes so it wasn't very democratic :/

  229. This is my distro by pherris · · Score: 5, Funny

    "THIS IS MY DISTRO. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My distro is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master 'Vice City'."

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  230. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by cirby · · Score: 1

    ...except that pretty much everything you wrote in your post is wrong. You might try and look up *where* Hussein got his chemical weapons, for one thing (not from the US, but from European countries), and among military suppliers, the US comes in way down the list (at about 1/30 of what the Soviet Union sold Iraq in the same time period, for example).

  231. FOSS and UI: Unappreciated by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    While I don't like any of those things, I don't think fighting for a world dominated by a programmer elite where any end-user or HCI person who expresses grievances with the usability of the FOSS software forced upon them is covertly "silenced" is hardly an improvement.

    If and when someone manages to silence ESR, come tell me, because I will be truly amazed.

    As for "forced upon them"...there are very few products, open or closed, that I consider "forced upon me". Perhaps Office, if I do a job that requires absolutely perfect .doc compatibility.

    If you're uncomfortable with the state of FOSS usability, let me breathe a bit of reality into this thread. I started using Linux about five years ago, with Red Hat Linux 5.2. At that point in time, we didn't have GTK apps. We didn't have GNOME. We didn't have KDE or Qt apps. We had systems that were wildly insecure out-of-box, a crabby XFree86 configuration system that frequently required manual editing of the config file. We didn't have little "themes" that you could activate by just downloading them from "themes.org" and choosing them in a menu -- you wanted to customize your environent, you sat your butt down and spent a couple weeks reading through AfterStep documentation and figured out what config file entries were outdated or didn't work -- and little niceties like a window "close" button that you could move the mouse off of to cancel a close didn't exist. We didn't get a color prompt -- you wanted one, you sat down with the bash man page and started reading. We didn't get color ls output without a lot of poking around. Nautilus didn't exist, nor did Konqueror -- you wanted an easy-to-use filebrowser, you used mc and appreciated it. An out-of-box Red Hat system didn't start up to XFree86 -- it gave you a blinking text prompt, and if you knew the magic command "startx", you could get a graphical environment. We didn't have any of those "Windows-like" editors like gedit -- you used nedit, and if you didn't like it, that was tough, because that was all there was. Evolution wasn't around -- you used pine or maybe Netscape Communicator. You remember what Athena looked like? The desktop looked pretty much like the black-and-white Athena widget set with a smattering of Tk and the AfterStep menus. You learned config files and rc files and you learned your system. People didn't even dream of antialiased fonts or of plug-n-play USB configuration. OpenOffice wasn't around, nor was Abiword, nor was gnumeric, and Microsoft Office compatibility was just a glint in someone's eye. The really "idiot-proof" stuff was some TCL scripts hacked up (like printtool and Control Panel) that let you configure things from a GUI instead of learning the format of various config files to make the slightest change. Oh, and that was the *easy* distribution -- the real Linux nuts used Slackware.

    That was only five years ago. Five.

    That was about the same time that Microsoft was getting ready to release Windows 2000 and Windows ME. The standard on the way out was NT4 and Windows 98. I ask you to compare NT4/Windows 98 with the current Windows XP and then compare the Linux desktop of five years ago to the Linux of today. Can you honestly say that Linux usability has been "ignored"? I don't think that I could straight-facedly say that *Windows* usability has been improving anywhere nearly as quickly as Linux usability.

    It's easy to underappreciate how incredibly rapidly FOSS usability has improved.

  232. Why the hell do Democrats like the draft so much? by JonBovi · · Score: 0

    Every time we've had a military draft or even the threat of one in the past 100 years, a Democrat's been behind it.

    World War I - Wilson
    World War II - Roosevelt
    Korean War - Truman
    Vietnam War - Johnson
    Re-activating the Selective Service - Carter
    The new draft bill - two Democrat congressmen.

  233. good, my ass. by Dissonant · · Score: 1, Troll

    2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.

    That's quite a tradeoff for their independance, self-reliance, creativity and personal freedom.

  234. Wouldn't that be ironic? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Call for support because your tank's weapons control computer crashed and get routed to tech support in the country you're invading. Oh, the irony...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  235. Don't think so by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I believe there have been numerous cases where some lawyer tried to argue that bad work contracts were voluntary servitude and therefore legal, and they were thrown out on their ear. Voluntary != forever. You can't sign away your rights in any contract. Even lesser rights cannot be signed away in, for instance, rental agreements.

    1. Re:Don't think so by jmauro · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'll find military contacts falling in the same vein as those bad work contracts.

  236. Double Bingo! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank you for stating the case so much better than I :-)

  237. Mosf of the terrorism is done BY the governments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.911timeline.net - informative, but not a lot of source citation really
    www.infowars.com - backed by sources and facts
    www.prisonplanet.com - backed by sources and facts

    Look it up. The government CREATES the problems, then they have an excuse to go fix it with laws like the Patriot Act that take your rights away and solidify their power.

    Washington DC was home base after the Civil War, UN was made after a war, the US blew up their own boat, blamed Spain and went to war, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Hitler burning the Reichstag... it's all throughout the history books.

    Check those links, they have links to tons of MAINSTREAM news articles to back this stuff up.

  238. Just cause you do computer stuf... by Trystansr · · Score: 0

    Doesnt mean you cant get shot at, as others here have attested to. I am currently in the Air Force, in a computer speciialty in a comm unit. The moment I got to my first duty station I was assigned an M16 and had to go thru a 2 week course that involved a week of sitting in behind a bunch of sand bags shooting at agressors (using blanks and alaser tag-type setup) among other things. The unit I am in is a mobile unit that deploys all around the world, sometimes into unfriendly territory. And this is where I went straight out of tech school. I too thought to join the Air Force in a computer job far from the front lines, but apparently they had other plans. I still have my computer job, but I am a lot closer to the front lines.

  239. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most intelligent post I've read on this stupid website in years. Probably ever.

  240. That's more accurate than you realize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading what some army guys have written, they say more than a few women are deliberately getting pregnant to get out of being deployed. As well, claiming they can't go because of the children they already have(as if the the males don't have children) and the CO's going along with it in the name of PC'ness. So they get to sit on their ass sucking up resources while the guys go off and do the work.

  241. Hah! I Can See It Now! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    /. nerdies lugging laptops through the mud in North Korea!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    Guess what? Bush will be drafting his 65 million rightwing moron Christians to invade the Middle East next...

    And you can't do anything about it, can you? Vote him out this year? HAH! Not with fraudulent voting machines in place - and the CIA ready with another "terrorist incident" in case the vote gap is too wide for vote fraud to work.

    Oh, yeah, we got Bush for another four years - and then Jeb for eight more coming up. You WILL be fighting a nuclear war in North Korea. Or slogging through sand in Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iran. As Halliburton and Cheney clean up the bucks - and everybody else's job goes to India.

    Welcome to the New World Order, suckers. I spent eight years in prison after trying to knock it down. Now it's your turn. But you don't have the balls or the brains.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  242. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by gaijin99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ah, the old "other people were worse" argument. As a patriot I do not accept the idea that because other governments have done worse it somehow excuses the fact that the US Government has done wrong. Maybe in your world the fact that the US supplied fewer weapons to Saddam than the Soviet Union makes it all right. I think my government should be better than that.

    The simple fact remains: the US government supplied weapons, technology, and money, to Iraq during a period when it was known that Saddam Hussain was engaging in murder, rape, torture, etc. Donald Rumsfeld (currently Secretary of Defense) visited Iraq during this period, shook hands with Hussain (known at the time to be a vile dictator), offered help, etc. Whether other countries did worse is irrelivant. The actions of the Regan and Bush I administrations make it pathetically obvious that concern for human rights in Iraq is not the reason for the current war. The actions of the Bush II government in supporting and providing aid to the thugs in charge of Uzbekistan (among other places) demonstrate two things: 1) they haven't learned not to cozy up to dictators yet, and 2) human rights simply aren't a concern for them. This leads directly to the conclusion that there must be a non-human rights motive for the war. Nothing you wrote did anything to disprove this conclusion. Do try again though, I would be interested in anything that could prove my conclusion wrong.

    I will also add that during the lead up to the current US/Iraq war several members of the Bush government, including President Bush himself, specificially excluded human rights violations as a justification for war. It is only now, after the fact, that the Bush government is claiming that human rights abuses were among their cuases for war.

    I will also mention that this is not a partisin issue. The Clinton administration, and all administrations during the past 50 years, have made it policy to support dictators and surpress democracy. The actions of the US government are directly opposed to the values that make the US a great country. I am curious as to why you want to defend these anti-American people and their policies. Could you explain?

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  243. Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could insurance clauses re war be one of the reasons they don't like to actually declare war these days?

  244. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by cirby · · Score: 1

    "Ah, the old "other people were worse" argument. "

    No, it's the "you were wrong, and now you're trying to pretend you said something else" argument.

  245. Re:Drafted to program? Please do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, turn off your computer, and throw it out the fucking window.

    jesus.

  246. Good the second time around, too... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'.

    Yeah, and they draw up plans for a nuclear strike against the country Bwatswuni too, but that doesn't mean they'll ever see the light of day. Honestly, do we need to relive the Gulf War Draft sensationalistic hype again??

    Gulf War Draft 2: IT Hell
    This time it's closer to home than ever...
    Rated PG-13

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  247. Hear Hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir, have a good head on your shoulders, and I found your post to be quite inspiring. Kudos for the courage to stand up and say what you believe!

    -- A Canadian brother

  248. Resistance is... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Fight selective service??? We can't even fight who gets to post some of the assnine stories around here :P

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  249. Re:The draft's supposed to be blind to wealth, rig by wmspringer · · Score: 1

    In theory, yes.

    In practice...well, let's not get into another political debate just yet :-)

  250. Sign me up! by leereyno · · Score: 1

    If things ever get bad enough that we'll NEED to reinstitute the draft then I'm all for it. No one will be drafting me however since I'll have signed up to put bullets in barbarians long before then.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  251. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Yakman · · Score: 1

    ow wait a sec...how is it that they can force me to be creative and efficient? How do they think something like this could ever work? Anyone they draft will just make copious subtle errors until they get canned. E.g. "Ooops, I forgot to check authentication when listening on that port...it was only supposed to be commented out during testing."

    They're just asking you do to your part for your country. If you don't like it feel free to renounce your citizenship and try and find one elsewhere. There's no need to deliberately sabotage your country's defence force.

    PS: I'm not a US Citizen, nor do I live in the US.

  252. Want to make me program with a gun to my head? by hermango · · Score: 1

    Want to make me program with a gun to my head? Yeah, try that and see how far it gets you? I'm a programmer, and an experienced one, and 63 years old and diabetic (among other things), but the clincher is that I'm the most recalcitrant son of a bitch you've ever seen! I can guarantee that no program I write with a gun to my head will ever do anything other than print out obscenities directed at the US Government. So shoot me, Government Mutherfucker!

  253. I suspect ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    I suspect that those of us who were booted from our jobs by outsourcing will be prime targets for such a draft. That way, the draft would become an employment program.

    On the lighter side, those signal corps guys don't get very close to the front lines. Your chances of being killed as a programmer in Chicago may be higher than a army network admin at the Baghdad airport.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:I suspect ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's probably very very true

      if you're unemployed, how could you object to getting back into your field, with decent enough pay, maybe some more training, maybe meet some people who know people in the field that could hook you up with a job when you get back out..

    2. Re:I suspect ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, because I'm anti-authoritarian, and whatever soulless automaton emerges from boot camp won't be me in any meaningful sense?

  254. Wouldn't it be wonderful if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we had a draft and everybody came?

  255. True enough... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    My understanding is the guys who staff service bands have to be capable of firing a weapon if the shit hits the fan.

    Imagine, hand to hand combat with trumpets and trombones, absolutely brutal!!!!!

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  256. Don't eat the seed corn by hagbard5235 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Furthermore, why does everyone think the draft was ok, even necessary, during WW II? Seems to me, if a war is popular, you don't need the draft.
    Quite the contrary, you need drafts more during popular wars. Drafts are fundamentally about managing a nations human resources in times of war. One aspect of that can be to compel service in those who wish not to serve. Another is to prevent service in those who you can't afford to have serve.

    For example, if you let all of your young college students go off and enlist, where exactly are you expecting to get your next generation of officer corp in the event the war is protracted? If you put rifles in the hands of engineers and others who are keeping your industrial machinery (which you need to prosecute the war) running how exactly are you going to continue to be able to fight?

    Look at the experience of Britain in WWI. All of their young idealistic college students dropped out and enlisted. When the war dragged on they discovered they'd eaten the seed corn. They'd thrown their best human resources away as grunts on the front lines early in the war.

  257. Bull ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    This is an old lie. Municipal agencies do a pretty damn good job at most of the services they provide.

    Municipalities are the institutions of the people. They are the safety pin that picks up the slack that the private sector does not cover. Most of the services provided by government are those that have little profit attached to them (besides monopolistic utilities).

    Government does have a role of providing UNIVERSAL services that the private sector has ZERO desire to do. Yes, Fedex would like to deliver the mail, but only to heavily populated areas. There are lots of private schools, but they only want to teach the brightest and richest, and most athletically gifted students.

    Finally, government isn't burdened by the need to create a profit. Nor are they run completely by appointed MBAs whose only real purpose is to enrich their supervisor and themselves.

    Non-profits are ALWAYS more efficient than profit-seekers because they are populated by people who are more interested in the MISSION than the self enrichment. They HAVE to be. In most cases they would make FAR MORE in the private sector.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Bull ... by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      If the private sector really doesn't want to do something, maybe it just shouldn't be done?

      Why should money be stolen from me to provide services for others? Can politicians really pat themselves on the back for their compassion when all they're doing is being generous with other peoples' money?

      Municipal agencies are horribly inefficient. Its nice rhetoric to say they aren't, but the real world, where we live, says otherwise. I can provide hundreds of books with data supporting my case... can you provide one?

      Is anything you believe based on anything but an innate dislike of the profit motive?

  258. Irony by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    The irony is that anarchy leads to the formation of alpha-military leaders to protect themselves and their group. This leads to rigid top down hierarchies and .... MORE RULES.

    Anarchy is simply a DIFFERENT form of order. A more brutal one.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Irony by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Not a true statement in that entire post.

      Many historical anarchies have not led to the described situation... just like not every democracy winds up an empire bent on world domination.

  259. Necessary truths by Wellmont · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm not going to plug obviously biased web sites, or claim that my beliefs are superior to yours. But i must disagree with your psychosis. If our troops are being killed in a foreign country instead of being welcomed with open arms, that country doesn't like us (whether we're there or not). And personally if my country calls on me, feeds me, pays me, and allows me the chance to protect it's people, i wouldn't turn it down.

    People in the world want to kill us.

    People in the world don't like ANYTHING Jews and Christians do. In fact they teach their children that everything we do (including providing foreign aid) is a way to kill them.

    Extremists will force or even kill their own Muslims and Islamic cohorts to make them go to war or sacrifice themselves for the Good of a handful of rich Extremists.

    If you want to argue about any of these points, i can give you hard facts instead of pointing you to biased websites.

    1. Re:Necessary truths by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      Lets talk about hard facts. Since you have all the answers, I'll ask you the following questions. 1) Why are people in the world trying to kil us? What did we do to make them so angry? 2) Why don't people of the world like Jews and Christians and Muslims? 3) What history do these groups have that could possibly warrant the world to dislike them? Hard facts please, thank you. Vox.

    2. Re:Necessary truths by jghiloni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People bomb abortion clinics and kill those doctors. People grab an innocent man who was in a bar in Wyoming, beat him, tie him to a fence and leave him to die. These people are extremists, yet you seem to think that only people committing acts of terror under the guise of Islam are Extremists. I'm not standing up for them, but I'm sick and tired of racism being disguised as patriotism. In addition, I don't mean to insinuate that you are a racist. I just try to nip things like that in the bud whereever I see them. Just my beliefs, not to claim that mine are superiors to yours.

    3. Re:Necessary truths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, people in the world don't like anything RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO. You know what scares us godless commie europeans most? Religious wackos with nukes. Like America.

    4. Re:Necessary truths by Wellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      like i said any questions or questioning will be answered...swiftly. Abortion clinics are killing babies, no matter what way you look at it your taking two lives and making one. I in no way condone bombing or killing of doctors. Just the same I in NO WAY condone bombing of babies or stripping them from their mother's wombs (you can talk to me later on more controversial subjects such as rampage, but i think you should attack the problem not kill innocents).
      Obviously you can go over and over again how the fringe of society attacking one person in a fit of rage. Usually they get harsher sentences than OJ Simpson did for mercilessly slaughtering two people in his own home. But these are separated subjects, in third world countries the masses are frenzied into terrorism by there local religions and frequently supported by the very figureheads that claim to be messengers of god.
      If you want the facts straight; the average joe in American isn't running around killing 100's because he thinks their religion is perfect, instead tolerance has tempered that WAY down.. But when you see 100's or 1000's killed by one person you have to wonder if the system or even the beliefs are skewed.
      I don't think it is the society itself but the people who control the religion, because frequently in these third world countries they are also the ones that lead the army, and have the money as well.....very bad connection if you ask me...if the pope as the richest man in Europe and controlled 3 world armies i think we would have a similar problem of misconstrued belief systems.

    5. Re:Necessary truths by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Abortion clinics are killing babies, no matter what way you look at it your taking two lives and making one.

      While I have no problem with the other stuff in your comment, I strongly disagree with _this_ viewpoint. Up until the fetus has coherent brain function, an abortion is just a removal of extra flesh - not any more immoral than removing a tumor or any other parasitic growth. Any other viewpoint is, almost by definition, ideological in nature, and should be treated as such in a rational-based, secular society.

    6. Re:Necessary truths by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Were you even replying to what I wrote? or did you hit reply at some odd point in the thread?
      I just can't put together what you are talking about with what I said.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    7. Re:Necessary truths by Wellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " not any more immoral than removing a tumor or any other parasitic growth"
      remember to tell your wife she was a parasitic growth up until she remembered her first mental images....remember to tell your son you meant nothing to him until he came out of the womb. And up until he cried he was basically a tumor. The only thing that most people dont understand is that abortion is all fine and dandy on paper, because most people think it happens early early in the game of baby+mother hood. We are not a secular society, a secular society would say no to feelings, beliefs, religion, and the individual. Unfortunatly most people still don't understand that our forefathers weren't secular but infact the people that populated this country had MANY religions all of which did not support abortion.
      quote me on this: "the day that you decide to put your life into the hands of people that want to kill you, then you can mandate wether or not a tumorus baby or parasitic wife lives or dies."
      Besides this being a far cry from the original post, i still reitterate my original post, i believe that the draft is nothing to run from.

    8. Re:Necessary truths by Wellmont · · Score: 1

      Answers to your very similar questions.

      1.)The "people" (terrorists) are trying to kill all things that resemble western society, everything from capatilisim, to a free market....that's a fact...go ask them. The REASON we should take up arms against them or prevent them through non-violent means is because their premise is wrong, thereby we did nothing other than being ourselves to make them "angry"

      2.)People do not like Christians, Jews, (and even muslims) because they are a peacful people by nature. The fact that most democratic nations (based on judeo-christain values) are successful at being themselves means they must destroy that in order to gain attention and to justify their own religion. Personally any religion, government, or belief, that has to justify itself through the destruction of inocent people is incorrect. (not saying that we havn't done so in the past)

      3.)The history that these groups have (including christainity) that makes the Middle-Eastern third world countries dislike them, is linked back to the crusades, when the christain world was dedicated to wipping out heathens. Again i separate myself from this belief that heathens should be destroyed. The places in the world such as Isreal have been the forefront of "religious war" for the last 800 years or more. Provided that we understand that we have to PROTECT our allies while we win over the popular masses of the third world countries with logic and understanding, you can understand the need for the draft if we are running low on reserves.

    9. Re:Necessary truths by Wellmont · · Score: 1

      ummm....yes

    10. Re:Necessary truths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose people in the world are worried. You know, USA has adopted a role of 'world policeman'. This means that if the government of USA doesn't like something, should or should it not pose an immediate threat, they will strike.

      Now don't mistake me, I support almost all the US interventions that happened until now. Although some of them were perhaps not necessary, all of them were cleanly 'the good vs. the evil', the good being USA. I (and the rest of the world, as I see it) am only worried WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE A REALLY BAD MAN IS VOTED AS US PRESIDENT. Someone who just wants to build an imperium, let the 'best nation in the world' (and many Americans seem to consider themselves the best nation) rule the world, as it should.

      Please don't say it cannot happen. It will happen, sooner or later. Maybe in a year, maybe in twenty, maybe in two hundred, maybe a thousand. But it happend every time until now, in every civilisation, and democracy is no shield from this (remember Hitler was elected, communists in many countries were elected in regular free ellection, too). It only needs some time of economic recession and people tend to vote for populists who promise they will never be hungry again. This may happen when the oil reserves diminish.

  260. 13th Ammendment by dmarx · · Score: 1
    Show me the part that exempts the military because I can't find it:
    Amendment XIII

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    --
    "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
    1. Re:13th Ammendment by a24061 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100% but in fact the courts have never properly upheld this amendment against conscription.

  261. I do not think NEED means what you think it means. by adb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In World War II, we may well have needed enough soldiers that the free market couldn't provide them, but I can't see a draft in modern times as anything but a dodge for the military to avoid paying market rates for skilled workers by forcing them to work under threat of prison instead. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the draft is slavery, justifiable only under very limited circumstances that we're nowhere near right now---and politicans will ultimately make this decision on expediency rather than genuine need, as they do with everything else.

  262. They're going to draft whom? by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight...

    they're going to draft hackers and put them in charge of military infrastructure.

    Wow, that sounds incredibly smart.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  263. I can see it now..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sgt: So what's your specialty?
    eng: Writing web page
    sgt: We can use someone like you, what sort of web?
    eng: I write pr0n web for a living
    sgt: holy smut!
    eng: kinda make you want to see it!?!
    sgt: anything else we should know about?
    eng: Live video chat with horny girls
    sgt: You sound perfectly for the communications group
    eng: cool - do I have to bring the girls and video camera?

  264. Drafts can last.... by hexatron · · Score: 1

    The last time the draft was instituted was not for Vietnam, it was for World War II. But that draft did not go away until after Vietnam. Drafts seem to be much easier to start than to stop. As for the domino theory--it was falsified in the clearest way possible. Its premise was fulfilled (the Hanoi government rules all of Vietnam) and its conclusion failed to occur (our last several presidents, with all their shortcomings, were not communists)

  265. HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say it with me now!

  266. Go ahead and draft me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And i'll join the Iraqui Resistence before I help you bastards running the US government invade their country any further.

    And put me behind a computer and then you can wonder why the Iraquis keep getting hold of info about American troop movements and why they know where all your equipment is before you even do.....

  267. Certification? by Pejorian · · Score: 1

    How do they determine who has computer skills?

    My feeling is that they'll probably look for folks with MSCE or some other certifications.

    Thankfully, it's a lot tougher to nail us down than health professionals. We don't have to have a MD, RN, or PT after our names.

    Yet another reason to avoid certification... :-(

    --
    - Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
  268. fuck that by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    If you kill all the geeks, who is going to tell you your printer is simply out of ink, or the batteries are dead in your mouse?

    Besides, why draft productive members of society? Go get a couple c130s and fill em up with supermax inmates. at 35000 feet, everyone gets a weapon, a chute, and flying leap out the back end into the sand.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  269. I'll play along if you will. by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

    2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.

    Sure! And two years of work at dead end Wal-mart and McDonald's entry level positions will teach our nation's older generations a thing or two about humility, money management (how to live on a lot less), and the importance of groveling to superiors even when you're right.

    I'll go to boot camp for a couple years, and when I come back I get to yell and scream at you that my burger has onions on it while you smile and apologize. Good deal?

    --
    "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
  270. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Have fun getting your ass shot off to keep a bunch of old white men rich, then. Be proud to die for the "president and all the cowards in congress".

    Dumbass.

  271. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by MulluskO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just joined the Marine Corps. I leave in Sept. I am not scared of some draft.

    I'd imagine not, considering that you are already in the military. There are those of us, balls notwithstanding, that have become accusomed to our current ways of life and would not like to be forced into military service. There are also those among us who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply prefer not to die.

    I can not think of any people other than my own for whom I would risk death to secure freedom. Using volunteers for our charity work around the world is all well and good, but I think drafts shold be reserved for actual threats to the nation's security.

    --

    Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
  272. What are the qualifications by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    will we need to have a certain level of experience before we can be drafted, or will it be anyone who is computer literate? Who decides this?

    I used to be a computer worker until I got too sick to work and went on diability and became a college student. I am getting out of the computer industry and getting into business management. So if I switch careers can I still be drafted?

    I used to work as a Federal Contractor for the US Army, so I delt with the government and military beore. I would be proud to serve my country, but my medical condition would prevent me from doing so. Also I am 35 years old, so what is the age limit here?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  273. Potheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Will failing the drug test keep you out of the military? If so, will there be any repricussions? If so, is it less than dodging the draft in Ca?

  274. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > There are those of us, balls notwithstanding,
    > that have become accusomed to our current ways
    > of life and would not like to be forced into
    > military service. There are also those among us
    > who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply
    > prefer not to die.

    There are two ways to look at it:

    1 - Afraid to die/lose your current way of life

    2 - Want to kill someone/change your current way of life

    Most of the people who join the USMC fall into that second catagory. If their recruiter is even vaugely honest with them (which, I'll admit, is a streach for even the mildest mannered recruiter), they let prospective recruits know that, in the end, it's about killing the enemy dead either by pushing a button, pulling a trigger or by putting your fscking kbar through his heart.

    Anyone who forgets that and still thinks military service is a good idea from them should probably join the peace corps and go off to get high with the natives in the next country that the USMC will be visiting shortly.

    Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.

  275. Question by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    So what exactly is the message they're trying to project with the whole "Army of One" slogan? I don't get it, it seems to me that the military works by training large groups of people to be able to act and react identically as a highly trained team.

    The "Army of One" seems to convey more of a cowboy mentaility, like "Every man for himself" and seems more likely to end up in a bunch of uncoordinated individuals running around haphazardly doing whatever they want.

    Someone in the know please explain what it really means!

    1. Re:Question by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's pretty simple - they've realized that our society today is more individualistic, less communitarian, than it was 40 or 50 years ago, and that to successfully recruit young people, they should emphasize the "personal betterment" aspect of the Army, and focus on specific individuals and their accomplishments to overcome exactly the rep that you are discussing.


      You do realize of course that the Army just hires high priced marketing agencies to come up with campaigns that will be successful in increasing recruiting numbers and that these slogans don't have anything to do with training, doctrine or actual practices in the military, right? It's not like the training process has changed just because they have tried to make more fuzzy advertising that will appeal to today's 16-17 year old kids.

  276. Wrong by Hobobo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Amendment XIV

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  277. Re:does it seem like.. by SignalFreq · · Score: 1

    The basic pay scale does not reflect the fact that both your housing (BAH) and subsistence (BAS, aka food) are provided for. If you live off the military base, this can take the form of tax-free money. Also, the amount of time served has a large effect on basic pay, especially after four years. Here are some numbers (BAH is based on location, these numbers are for San Diego 92055, and w/o dependents):

    Rank..Yrs..Base.Pay...BAS......BAH.......Total
    E1....<2...14320.80...3150.00..11088.00..28558.80
    E4....2....19659.60...3150.00..11088.00..33897.60
    E5....4....23893.20...3150.00..12204.00..39247.20
    E6....6....27720.00...3150.00..12888.00..43758.00
    E8....12...39675.60...3150.00..15276.00..58101.00

    01....<2...27172.80...2102.76..12744.00..42019.56
    03....4....48326.40...2102.76..16308.00..66737.16
    04....8....57711.60...2102.76..18768.00..78582.36
    o6....16...81687.60...2102.76..21240.00..105030.36

    Now, what are those tax-free BAH dollars worth?

    Tax A is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if base pay, BAS, and BAH were all taxed.
    Tax B is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if only base pay and BAH are taxed.
    Taxes calculated are based on single status with standard deduction.

    Rank..Tax.A.....Tax.B.....Savings
    E4....4104.00...2361.00...1743.00
    E8....10154.00..6329.00...3825.00
    03....12304.00..8229.00...4075.00
    06....22824.40..18873.00..3951.40

    Of course, you will never be paid for overtime, but there are other special pay items:
    Family Separation Allowance $250 / month? (not sure about this one)
    Hazardous Duty Pay $150 / month
    Diving Pay $340 / month
    Parachute, Flight Deck, Demolition, some Others $150 / month
    if Qualified HALO, $225 / month
    Submarine Pay (increases with cumulative years at sea): $75 - $595 / month
    Sea Pay (increase with years at sea): $50 - $646 / month
    Doctors and dentists get anywhere from 12,000 to 36,000 / year incentive pay.

    All in all, I think it is a fair pay scale. Some may argue for more considering that lives are (sometimes) on the line. To each his own. There are other benefits... medical/dental, 401k equiv (TSP), education assistance, life insurance...

  278. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great! The government is going to invite a bunch of disenfranchised anti-government conspiracy theorists to come and work for them? Great news! No need to hack! You have clearance!

  279. Do us a favor and goto Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who don't want to serve or those that are so paranoid to believe in a conspiracy are welcome to goto Canada! Please go!! If you need a bus pass let me know and most of this country will chip in and send you the $$.

  280. The bridge between mobilization levels by jedi-monkey · · Score: 1

    If memory serves, activating the selective service system can happen right around a "full mobilization," acting as the bridge between having all of your forces committed to whatever the current strategy of the National Command Authority is and starting to pick up blocks of soldiers out of the general populace. As has been touched on previously, this report is most likely some government agency trying to show their importance in a politically-driven military establishment. Someone, somewhere, figures that selectively taking blocks of the general public for pre-determined jobs is a brilliant meet-them-halfway sort of "draft," as to actually enact a draft would likely draw extreme public sentiment when the major parties could be focusing the energies of public sentiment elsewhere. Bottom line, this probably won't happen unless (as has been previously stated by others) all hell breaks loose.

  281. Sign me up! by nycsubway · · Score: 1

    This sounds interesting. The economy is in the crapper anyway. If the country went to war, I'd rather be working for the government doing code breaking or electronic warfare than working in a factory or be given a rifle.

  282. Speak for your self. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some of us can.

  283. DRAFT = CURE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What to do with all these ole' U.S. workers now out of work because their jobs were shipped over seas, scrapped by illegals, or wall marted out of existence?

    Well - Draft them for the front lines!!

    By golly !

    2 Birds + 1 Stone.

  284. RTFA: This is a pure "What if" role-playing by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know it's useless to ask Slashdotters to RTFA before posting, but those who did would find the following:
    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is adamant that he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is remote.

    Nonetheless, the agency has begun the process of creating the procedures and policies to conduct such a targeted draft in case military officials ask Congress to authorize it and the lawmakers agree to such a request.

    This makes clear that the "U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel" headline is pure scaremongering. No one is about to get drafted. This is not "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming" for those of you trapped in the 1970s. This is deep, long-range contingency planning by a government agency that needs to look busy to keep their funding from being cut.

    Too many people seem to be ignorant of the difference between "contingent" and "imminent." Just because, say, for example, FEMA updates its plans on recovering from a nuclear war DOESN'T MEAN we're planning to launch a nuclear war. Likewise, that whole "Pentagon plans for possibility of global climate change" had nothing to do with them planning for what they thought was going to happen, but everything to do with laying in contingency plans for what MIGHT happen, just like we had "rainbow" plans before World War II as to what we might have to do if involved in a global war against various enemies; just because we made plans for a global war against England, Russia and China (as well as Japan and Germany) didn't mean such an event was likely.

    Will anyone here on Slashdot be called up? If, say, al Queda or North Korea nukes DC or Los Angeles, maybe. Otherwise all this talk is a bunch of blather from people who like to over-react anytime anyone in the Bush administration mentions the words "national security" and "computers" in the same sentence.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:RTFA: This is a pure "What if" role-playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who said ostriches don't read slashdot

  285. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 0, Troll

    Quick question, all those people who are too apathetic to vote and who didn't vote in the last few elections because "there's no difference between a Democrat and a Republican", can we get them to go first? Please?

    Ooh Ooh, even better, how about we get all the people who were in favor of invading Iraq to go first?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:zerg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why has this been modded down? Can someone come up with an intelligent, just rebuttal of what he said?
      I say make a separate lottery for all registered SUV owners, registered republicans, and registered sex offenders.
      Mind you, this list isn't in any particular order- forwards or backwards.

    2. Re:zerg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who modded this post down probably forgot to cast a ballot in 2000.

  286. I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like in forest gump.

    Drill Sargent: Private Tux, why did compile your kernel so quickly?

    Pvt Tux: Because you told me to Drill Sargent.

    Drill Sargent: Gawwdammit Tux, I'd recommend you for MCP, but that would be one hell'va waste of a recruit!

  287. I can't be drafted... by Mr_Cheeky · · Score: 0

    I'm an adulterer. Remember Lt. Flynn?

  288. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You poor deluded schmuck. (And I mean that in the literal sense.) Did you really think that "code red" business in *A Few Good Men* was part of the fiction?

  289. Join up by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    ...then write bugs, drag your heels, code in forth and J2EE and Ada (all on the same project), drop down into assembler to preemptively hyper optimize bubble-sort, stack-allocate fixed length arrays to hold dynamic input (nobody needs more than ten characters to type a password!), misuse threads with time-loops instead of mutexes, and build everything you think you might need (indirected for several unnecessary layers of genericity) before you pay attention to coding any of the actual algorithm.

    The Man can make you sit at a workstation and type, but he can't make you think. Or stop you from thinking.

  290. Re:Booyah! Overweight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've got 1000's of years of human experimentation to draw on, but the vast majority of it is on middling to low intelligence, reasonably social people. I'm pretty sure that the stereotypical slashdot over-weight, desocialized, bright kid could get himself kicked out (court martialed?) for not losing weight simply by, "not caring." Do what you will - scream in his face, convince the other kids in his group to beat him up, treat him like shit any way you can. It ain't going to be much worse than extreme high-school bullying. Mentally turle-up for a month or two and he "wins" is rewarded by not being sent off to face death.

  291. "War President" by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    If GWB wins, we're most probably going to have a conflict with Syria or Iran and he's going to need more troops for that.

    Ah, but it's okay if he drafts some troops -- GWB is, after all, a "war president".

  292. Gay? That's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being gay is very handy too. Don't ask don't tell? Well --- if they are shooting at me, I'm definitely telling.

    ...they'll have a special assignment waiting for you in General Gaylord's all-homosexual "thhhhpethial forthes" division, where you'll learn some real army discipline boy!

  293. Arabic language experts by FrenchyinCT · · Score: 1
    Geez, maybe the reason why they have such a hard time attracting and retaining Arabic language experts is because anyone who even *remotely* knows anything about anything Arab very often winds up in a special suite at the Gitmo Hilton in Cuba.

  294. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.

    So long as we understand "service" properly:

    The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. -- Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau

    Never confuse serving the state with serving your country.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  295. Re:Has the world gone mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen, fuck the U.N., fuck liberals and fuck the EU.

    Maybe if the EU had guns or the death penalty they'd be deterring terrorists too.

  296. Elian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are gazillions of child custody cases. Charging in with automatic weapons is something you might expect to see in *Cuba*, not here!

    Nothing needed to be done so urgently that all every single branch of government needed to get involved. If there was some reason he *had* to be snatched, it could have been done muuuuch more smoothly and painlessly. While they are walking home, police pull up, flash a badge, say "can you come with me", voila. Or "hey kid, how about some candy? Nice gov't candy! Come over here..."

  297. Certifications the new Selective Service database! by geekp0wer · · Score: 1

    Where better to get the 1st round of canidates. Admins are going to be worse of than developers. They seem to be a more certification happy bunch. If you have your CCIE you are almost guaranteed to get drafted.....hehe

  298. draft my pc by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    When i first read the topic, I thought it ment the army would draft my pc...and I just bought this 9800!!!

  299. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its their job to fight, and yours to vote. Their life can depend on your vote. ie: Take your vote more seriously than whether the candidate is pro-life.

  300. I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Mark my words, the draft will be back.
    If Bush is reelected then the draft will start Jan or Feb 2005, slow for the first few months and then when they are up to speed they'll start pulling large amounts of young men.
    I am willing to wager you $1000 you are wrong, with the following guidelines:
    1. I bet that by June 1, 2005, not a single U.S. citizen will have been drafted into the U.S. military by Selective Service conscription (i.e., National Guard call-up and the like doesn't count).
    2. I am willing to write a check to you in the amount of $1000 (U.S. dollars only), if you will do the same for me, both of these to be placed in the custody of a mutually trustable third party. I suggest Bruce Sterling, Cory Doctrow or Eric Raymond (all of whom I know) as three possibilities of third parties sufficiently well-known to the Slashdot community to be stewards of the bet (and at least two of which lean politically to the left).
    3. If by June 1, 2005, no draft has been instituted, the third party will give your check and my own to me.
    4. If at any time before that, Congress, the White House, or the Selective Service administration actually reinstitutes (not just suggests or discusses reinstituting) the draft by actually calling up conscripts (news that must be verified on the front page of The Washington Post or The New York Times), then the third party will forward these checks to you.
    5. If a major terrorist incident (defined as one causing 1000 or more civilian deaths) occurs on U.S. soil, the bet is off.

    So, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to wager cold, hard cash that your paranoid liberal view of the world is rooted in fact rather than delusion? I've even given you four months longer than you're "sure" the draft will be reinstated. Or are you all just talk?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I suggest you place the checks in the
      custody of a lawyer or trusted fiduciary in
      NJ or NV? Or, perhaps you should instead just
      forward the checks to your state police as
      evidence, or even the FBI, should your illegal
      bet cross state lines.

      So, are you willing to do some hard time to
      prove your point, and actually illegally
      gamble? Or was your offer a thinly disguised
      taunt.

    2. Re:I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. by pherris · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ah, you kind of misquoted me there by leaving out "Here's my guesses". I'm guessing Jan or Feb 2005 but it could be anytime in the first six months. My point is IMO the draft is coming back. Why would Bush push for the quick restaffing of draft boards after 30 years of inactivity? Why build a weapon if you have no intentions of using it?

      You need to include the recall of Reservists that have completed all thier obligations and have broken all ties (except security agreements of course) with the Govt in your "draft" requirements. As someone who's about your age and has more than one of the requirements they're looking for, had signed a contract when I was 17 giving them my life until I am 65, I, personally, am effected by all this "brew ha ha". Me and every other former member of the military is subject to recall. This would be a de facto selective draft.

      While I thank you for the offer I don't gamble. It takes money away from my hardware budget. Let's revisit this discussion in either one's journal and see who's right. Honestly, I hope you're right and no one gets drafted but I don't see it that way.

      Quite honestly I see your post as part flamebait but I thought I'd post a response anyways.

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    3. Re:I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, prude.

      It's people like you that further the goal this administration has of going away from the Constitution. NOTHING in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to make gambling illegal. If I'm wrong, prove it - show me the text that allows the feds to say 'woops, no gambling'.

    4. Re:I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      I bet that by June 1, 2005, not a single U.S. citizen will have been drafted into the U.S. military by Selective Service conscription (i.e., National Guard call-up and the like doesn't count).

      What about non-citizens? I am a legal resident alien. I hold a green card. I have not yet resided in the U.S. long enough to apply for citizenship. Unless restricted by age, I am subject to the draft. I'm curious if you left that bit out by design or not.

  301. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.

    Both you and Heinlein are fucked in this regard. The idea that you must put yourself forward as one willing to kill on the state's say-so is morally repugnant, as well as pusillanimous. The willing thug is the only one to have a vote and determine the fate of all others??? Incorrigible and irredeemable horseshit. I don't meet your criteria as a killer, so I have no say??? Fuck yourself in the face with that one.

  302. Remember the evaporation rate! by forgetful · · Score: 1

    The last draft tore this Republic apart. Vietnam ended, for those of you too young to remember, because the AWOL and desertion rate exceeded the draft rate--the army was evaporating. Americans will face the Bowels of Hell to protect the homeland, the Constitution, their girlfriends, and secure access to broadband, but you better have a leader with cajones. These guys ain't Nazi Germany or the Soviets. Far cheaper a $10 million bounty on each and every one of the bad guys. Long live free enterprise! (Opening paragraph to my new novel...)

    --
    "...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
    1. Re:Remember the evaporation rate! by a24061 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In case anyone's interested, here are some statistics from Zinn's Declarations of Independence about military service in the Vietnam War:

      2,000,000 served
      500,000 evaded the draft
      100,000 deserted
      34,000 were court-martialled and imprisoned

    2. Re:Remember the evaporation rate! by forgetful · · Score: 1

      Wow. I had no idea the avoidance/desertion rate was that high. That means the a/d numbers over the thirteen years of the war exceeded the peak force of 550,000 in Vietnam at any one time. Do you happen to have the figures for the final year of the war? My "evaporation" comment was based on an article in Newsweek (I believe) a year or so after the U.S. left Saigon. These figures demonstrates how important it is that the population, and specifically the conscription population, support a war effort. Many governments have fallen--Imperial Russia is a classic example--when the population loses faith in the leadership. The American Confederacy and the Germans in WWII continued to fight long after the devastation should have suggested a truce or surrender.

      --
      "...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
  303. And Rumsfeld is soooo trustworthy by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is adamant that he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is remote.

    He would never ever ever mislead people. Look how honest he was during the run-up to the War on Iraq!

    If Rumsfeld says there's no draft, then that settles the issue. Yes sir, this administration means what it says and never ever flip flops.

  304. You go boy! by Zareste · · Score: 1

    I honestly would consider shooting myself (as a last resort of course) before helping Bush mutilate whatever oil-bearing country he feels like going after next. There's a great number of pawns out there who would blast anyone in sight going "Yeah! I'm protecting my country! Die!" and God knows they've got the mindless patriots behind them, "You're protecting your country! Now go out there and die! I meanwhile will be watching TV because I'm over the drafting age. Kill the world to protect your country! Die!" Oh they love it.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  305. Bzzzt by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    There goes Godwin's law. You lose ;)

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Bzzzt by demi · · Score: 1

      I've been exposed--I give up! jasonditz wins!

      --
      demi
  306. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
    They're just asking you do to your part for your country. If you don't like it feel free to renounce your citizenship and try and find one elsewhere. There's no need to deliberately sabotage your country's defence force.

    This goes both ways. When I figure "my" country is looking out for _me_ (not me in particular, but people in my "class"), then I'll reciprocate. If I figure "my" country is actually looking after arrogant rich bastards who have arranged for everyone else to do the dying for them, then I'll be focused on getting my ass out of the so-called "defense force" alive, by _any_ means possible.

  307. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by innosent · · Score: 1, Troll

    But who do you vote for? In most elections, there are zero "good" candidates, it's always picking the lesser of the two evils. So why waste the time? You can't vote for an outsider, they won't win, and the two major parties will both cause more harm than good. You'll either be taxed to death, lose your job and starve, be killed by terrorists, or be killed because the government says you ARE a terrorist. Hell, Janet Reno already ate the bill of rights, and Ashcroft is burning the constitution, so we now have an elected dictatorship.

    Tinfoil hat note: My theory is that the government knew about 9/11 before it happened, possibly even directly provoked it, just to get things like the PATRIOT act passed, and distract people from what their true intentions were. It's an old political tactic (think British parliament vs. royal families), just with a new spin. Want to take away your citizen's rights, make them think they need some of them taken away for protection from someone else.

    To paraphrase Microsoft's old slogan, "What basic human rights do you want us to violate today?"

    --
    --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
  308. Jury Duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks.

    I got "drafted" for jury duty in Dade County/FL.

    That was bad enough...

  309. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by TeraCo · · Score: 1

    You haven't read the book then, there are more ways to serve then join the military. You could always do space suit testing on Io.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  310. Re:The draft's supposed to be blind to wealth, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    true....

    Now considering that I have already got my paperwork in for the local draft board and if things go well I will be sitting on it when the draft starts....

    If they are some rich kid they are getting assigned to the Marines in a frontline combat unit as a rifleman.

  311. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1

    You sir, have made my 'friends' list. Gotta say, I also love the sig.

    --
    A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
  312. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
    Okay, now you're just being assinine. What did he say that was wrong? Please, point something out. You agreed that the US provided aid and comfort to Saddam all the while knowing he was a brutal dictoator (you just tried to justify it by saying that the USSR did it more). The US also stil provides aid to brutal dictators (Uzbekistan as mentioned). Grandparent's conclusions of "1) they haven't learned not to cozy up to dictators yet, and 2) human rights simply aren't a concern for them" naturally follow. If you came to a different conclusion, please explain your logic so that we may understand. If you disagree with the facts (that the US did provide aid to Saddam, and the US continues to support other dictoral regimes), please state why you disagree.

    And please, no more "The USSR was worse!"-style finger-pointing. The USSR isn't the one occupying Iraq under the pretense of moral superiority.

    --
    A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
  313. Re:How about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You know, it must be pretty fucking great to be in a country so peaceful that you have to pretend you were heavily involved in wars you weren't.

    No wonder USians make fun of the Canadians: they're jealous...

  314. How about $50? by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    And we ad/change a few of the terms.
    1. The bet is $50 (US).
    2. The money goes to a charity of the winning person's choice.
    3. We don't involve a third party because we're adults and stand by our words.
    4. We add the call-up of former reservists and former military personelle.
    5. It doesn't matter which page of a respectable news source that the story breaks and a list of respectable news sources will be agreed upon.
  315. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by flyfisher · · Score: 1

    Thoreau had his head up his rear. Any one who has actually been in the military knows that serving "as machines" is hogwash. Such people are quickly eliminated from the gene pool.

    --

    d4,...,Nf3, or maybe I should use a Ratfaced Mcdougal?
  316. "Interpretation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    The 13th Amendment has been interpreted to specifically not include serving on juries or being drafted by the military

    Your post reminds me of the way the democratic constitutions of Communist countries of Eastern Europe were "interpreted".

    In theory, Eastern Germany was more liberal and democratic than Western Germany, but in fact, it had a dictatorship.
  317. Everything else costs... extra! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    "I think drafts should be reserved for actual threats to the nation's security" -- and then be limited to being handed a gun and a helmet. Everything else costs extra. Depending on the kind of work they can "draft" my services starting at $80/h + expenses. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to work with a bunch of unhappy and angry draftees on projects.

  318. Draft Linus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO will probably pay its lawmakers to draft the heroes of the open source movement which has changed the face of computing forever: linus, alan cox, riek van riel, etc. imo, mcbride & valentini are better at warfare..

  319. Re:Wrong sequence of events - and facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be easy going through life as such as simpleton. Your tripe is so misguided it is hard to know where to start.

    First, the Bush administration never claimed that human rights abuses were the reason for going to war. The stated justification was to prevent Iraq, either by itself, or in league with terrorist organization, from using WMD's. They have claimed that the manifest horrors of the regime are justification enough for the war, which is something you agree with by implication.

    Second, the conclusion you assert (since it doesn't follow logically, in any way, from your two irrelevant statements) simply agrees with the administrations statement that they went to war to prevent the use of WMD's. You blather on but say nothing.

    Your statement that it has been US policy to "support dictators" and "surpress" (sic) democracy is just plain stupid. Have you noticed the emergence of democracies in most of Eastern Europe? A direct result of the policies of the Reagan administration you fool. We rebuilt Western Europe (as democracies). We rebuilt Japan as a democracy. We have supported the only democracy in the middle east (Israel, you idiot). When you get out of high school you should spend some time with a history book.

    It is true that the US has, over the years, supported many dictators. This is because the primary goal of US foreign policy is the security of our nation. Freedom and democracy for others are secondary goals and always have been. One may argue that those goals should be primary but the simple fact is that our people ( just read the posts on this topic) do not have the will to make those goals preeminent. The cost is more than we are willing to bear.

    The US used to support the Shah of Iran who was friendly to the US and a heavy handed dictator. The idiot Carter threw the Shah overboard and what
    we got in return is the more brutal, and more threatening Ayatollahs. We also supported the Marcos, the dictator in the Phillipines. And we supported the evolution of democracy there.

    We support dictators when there is no viable alternative. And where we can, we support freedom and democracy. Look around the world and you will see that even where we support dictators, there are fewer human rights abuses, and more personal freedom, than in the surrounding countries.

    Get your facts right, take logic 101, and then try posting something of substance.

  320. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    Asking me to do my part for my country is one thing, but making me fight in a conflict I may or may not support is tantamount to slavery.

    You're talking to someone who thinks the draft should be made unconstitutional.

  321. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    I do hope you realize that only Democrats like Orrin Hatch and Chuckie Rangel want to bring back the draft... specifically because they think that "rich" folks aren't doing enough of the fighting.

  322. Re:I do not think NEED means what you think it mea by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 1

    Sorry to pick on you for this, but I'm seeing this argument all over the place today.

    Who said the military was an economic organisation? They may have to deal with some of the same issues as private companies during peacetime, but I think it's important to remember that the purpose of the military is to ensure the continued existence of our political and economic system, not to be a profit-generating part of it.

    It may be nice to have an economic system that could be protected by an organisation which plays by its rules, but the realities of the world we live in do not always allow such romantic visions to be effective.

    Sometimes you just need to do what works.

    Dan

  323. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

    I don't buy that excuse. If everything is so helplessly fvcked up and there is no point is voting, why do you stay here? I agree about the crookedness of political parties, but the differences seem obvious to me. You say it doesn't matter, then say that GWB & Co. provoked the act that started the war. Even if you don't believe that, there is no question he dragged our country into war that no one wanted but the White House.

    How can you say it doesn't matter? Do you believe that Gore would have invaded Iraq for non existant WMD's? They will tell you they had the same intellegence as Clinton, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq, so obvoiously he reached different conclusions from the evidence. The difference is that Bush was looking for an excuse. 9/11 gave him that. In a frenzy of flag-waving patriotism, the US went along. Anyone who dared to speak against the war was branded a pinko, commie, unAmerican libral. It got so bad that folks were being arrested for wearing 'Give Peace a Chance' T-Shirts. Do you really think it would have played out this way under Gore?

    Obviously it DOES matter who you vote for, even in a system as corrupt as ours.

    --
    There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
  324. "Sometimes" is the key word. by adb · · Score: 1

    How can you be so glib about the idea of forcing people into military service? This is not a trivial thing; it is the use of violence against our own people, which can only be justified by great need. As I said, I recognize that it can be justified by great need, but I want you to recognize that we're nowhere near that. The economic argument is exactly the issue here: if the military offered a fair wage for sysadmins or programmers, I might well be working for them; but they don't, so I'm not, and millions like me aren't, and so they have a "shortage". A shortage that can reasonably be answered with the free market is not the same thing as a shortage because we're at war and men are dying faster than they are volunteering.

    1. Re:"Sometimes" is the key word. by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 1

      I'm not glib about it at all.

      In no way do I want for there to be a draft. The part I disagree with is that the military is an economic entity like any other. I'm most certainly not in favour of the draft, nor do I think that we're in such desperate times that one should be required. I think the over-extension of our military forces is a bad thing--and that the solution is to bring them home. Please don't misunderstand my perspective; I agree that a draft is a bad idea, I just happen to feel that justifying that perspective using economic principles of supply and demand is a specious argument, no matter how convenient it is.

      Dan

  325. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
    There are also those among us who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply prefer not to die.

    You can get papercut infections anywhere, not just in Pentagon offices...

    Seriously, one thing I learned serving in the military is that it is the best place to hide from a war... join up, get a cushy desk job specialist rating in some stateside coding outfit that will never see a battlefront in a million years, and watch all the nutless idiots get sent off to be cannon fodder.

    --
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
  326. Use the technical specialists you already have by gr84b8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm currently in the Army Reserves and write software on the civilian side. For the past 8 years I've been trying to find a way to help out the Army Reserves with my computer skills - and from my perspective there are lots of others just like me.... problem is, the Army doesn't know what to do with us. Sure, they have set up special 'Information Operations' units filled with talented people... but most of these people waste their time ordering computers, installing microsoft 2000 on them, and upgrading patches.... not to mention filling out paperwork and stacking boxes... its a complete waste of time. And these are smart people who really want to help out with their skills. I would prefer seeing the military make a plan for how to USE the technology specialists they have before drafting up a plan to pluck people out of their civilian life.

  327. There is a general draft on its way. here is proof by dynamo · · Score: 1

    http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1 63:

  328. It's a little late, but ... by crmartin · · Score: 1

    ... just to put it on record, if we ever need computer guys in the military this bad, I volunteer.

    And I'm old and fat.

  329. Re:I do not think NEED means what you think it mea by leereyno · · Score: 1

    From what I've read today, the military doesn't WANT the draft in the first place. They are dead set against it. They want soldiers who signed up voluntarily, not someone who is there under protest. The most valuable lesson that was learned from Vietnam is that you can't win a war unless your soldiers are there to fight. Pulling some guy in off the street, sticking him in a uniform, shipping him to the other side of the world, handing him an M-14, and telling him to go kill Charlie just doesn't cut it. You need bloodthirsty killers who WANT to be in the jungle looking for Charlie (or Ivan, or Haibib).

    I also found out that it was the left who initiated the idea of bringing back the draft. This is very clever on their part because the draft is where they derived a lot of their power during the Vietnam war. After we went to the all volunteer system the turn out at war protests all but dried up. Today the left is having to scream and bitch REALLY loud because most people who aren't dyed in the wool bolsheviks aren't listening.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  330. One method by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    will we need to have a certain level of experience before we can be drafted, or will it be anyone who is computer literate? Who decides this?

    In a more poetic world they'd just pick up the MCSE's.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  331. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by innosent · · Score: 1

    Actually, yes, I do think it would have been the same. Whether intentional or not, 9/11 gave the highest levels of government the ability to grab more power, and they all did. Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter, both sides approved PATRIOT easily, as well as several other broad-reaching bills (Sarbanes-Oxley after the accounting scandals, for instance). Gore might not have invaded Iraq, or maybe he would have, but that's not the important part. The government didn't have to invade Iraq to take away our rights, they just did it as a side note. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, but he did bomb them, so what's the difference? He obviously thought that bombing them would solve whatever problem he had (which was probably public opinion, not Iraq). Whatever Clinton's true reasons were, it did a good job of distracting the media from what HE was doing.

    Both parties in the US are corrupt, in fact probably all governments around the world are corrupt, but at least in some countries, public officials are cheaper. Does it really matter who is in the White House? Probably not. Al Gore would have signed PATRIOT just as quickly as Bush did, and he would have put on the same "Hunt for Al Queda" dog-and-pony show as Bush has, even going to Iraq, so long as it made him look good. Politicians care about their money, careers, power, family, food, personal goals, golf games, favorite type of toilet paper, the constitution, and their constituents, in that order.

    --
    --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
  332. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

    Whoa, when did Orrin Hatch join the Democratic party?

  333. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually since PATRIOT act was written by john ashcroft and his cronies at the DOJ, I highly doubt that he would have signed anything like that, and with a republican controlled house, that sucker probably woulndt have touched the floor. That's not to say that Gore's AG wouldnt have been some fascist and written some crazy law not unlike the PATRIOT act. You can bet he/she would have.

  334. Congress likes to do that for some reason... by adb · · Score: 1

    ...by which I mean "give" the military things it doesn't want, like extra B-2 bombers and the blood of innocents and stuff. Why? Search me. I can't even figure out who keeps getting santorum all over the floor.

  335. The government is different from other entities... by adb · · Score: 1

    ...in two major ways: (1) it can play by its own rules, often avoiding restrictions imposed on ordinary businesses, and (2) its job is, in certain times and places, so critical to everything else that (1) is justified. What I am saying is that it is a bad idea to throw out the rules (e.g., that nobody can make other people work at gunpoint) without specific justification, and that "they don't want to work for us because we don't pay commensurate with risk and skill" is not sufficient justification.

  336. Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Fritz Hollings.

  337. Not just to make people unhappy with Bush... by rthille · · Score: 1

    Well, when the economy is a mess and children of the poor who joined up because it was that or flipping burgers are sent off to war so the rich can drive their Hummers without taking it in the neck on gas prices, people see even a volunteer army as a social injustice.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:Not just to make people unhappy with Bush... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      That's right, there's a national conspiracy by us Hummer owners to eliminate the US poor by getting them killed in foreign countries.

      I confess, you figured us out.

    2. Re:Not just to make people unhappy with Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since you admitted to own a hummer you're certainly a part of the problem. And a total scumfuck.

    3. Re:Not just to make people unhappy with Bush... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      No actually, I only own a sedan. I just wrote it from the first person to mess with your tiny head.

  338. Coming out won't protect you by frankie · · Score: 1
    if they are shooting at me, I'm definitely telling

    Won't work. Back in Gulf War I a lot of soldiers outed themselves, but they were sent to Iraq anyways, then discharged immediately upon rotating home. The Army claims that gays are a threat to morale in wartime, but when push comes to shove they just care about more able bodies carrying guns.

  339. Not a good method by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Most MCSE's I know cheated on their tests by getting a copy of it off the Internet with all the answers on it before taking it. The rest I have no idea how they passed their MCSE because they apparently do not know anything important about Microsoft technologies. There are few MCSEs that I know of who are worth more than a protozoan's waste. ;)

    Disclaimer, I am not a MCSE, nor do I intend to be. In my humble opinion, it is a BS-Certification and while I could easily get one, I choose not to on the priciple of the thing.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Not a good method by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And you were wondering why I suggested rounding them up and shipping them to a warzone, eh? ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  340. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by WorldWideWait · · Score: 1

    > Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.

    And where exactly, sir, does that leave people like me, who have a disability and are classified as automatic 4F? Does this mean that I do not get the right to vote because I cannot serve in the military?

  341. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by WorldWideWait · · Score: 1

    I think you've been filling the position quite well, sir. I'll let you continue doing so.

  342. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by rbullo · · Score: 1
    You can't vote for an outsider, they won't win
    This is exactly the kind of attitude that is putting American politics(and America in general) down the shitter. If people voted for who they wanted to win, I'll bet there wouldn't be as many corrupt morons in Congress.

    Or maybe I'm wrong...
    --
    OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
  343. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
    Obviously it DOES matter who you vote for, even in a system as corrupt as ours.

    You make a good argument, but it is all based on a flawed assumption: that your vote actually counts. If the system is as corrupt as some believe, then the elections are just a staged play, and the vote you cast, while it may be counted, does not actually play a direct part in selecting who takes office. In fact, it probably just gets your name added to a list labelled Potential Trouble-maker

    --
    "The Internet is made of cats."
  344. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by pherris · · Score: 1
    Great post. BTW, here's a kbar for those that haven't seen one.

    From "Full Metal Jacket":

    "Paris Island, South Carolina. The United States Marine Corp Recruit Depot. An eight week college for the phony tough and the crazy brave."
    This is not to degrade the Corp in any way, shape or form. This quote reflects the view of someone who's been there and not of a wannabe. Those that edify the role of the soldier without having served degrade it. There are very few guys that have been in bad spots that ever talk about it to even those closest to them though they carry the memories everyday.

    Killing people sucks.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  345. On Message by fm6 · · Score: 1
    ...but the "businesses create more jobs" bullshit is getting old.
    Getting? It's been the Republican mantra since Ronald Reagan made it a central theme of his presidential bid -- 25 years ago!

    It's called being "on message". You pick an idea that appeals to people and you repeat it as often as you can. Never mind if it's illogical or even irrelevent to the subject at hand. (Journalists complain that politicians don't answer questions any more, they just recide the message-du-jour.) What matters is the picture created in the minds of the voter the politician is targeting.

    Appalling? Nauseating? Sure. But I'm darned if I know what to do about it.

  346. Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, but it would be a watered down version. It a matter of intensity. Liberal politicians tend to be soft & mushy bunch, thus less likely to put out a P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act level of rights violations. They may spinelessly tag along, as we have seen, but aren't likely to initiate it. (That and conservatives have a monopoly on catchy bill names.)

    Conservatives, but not all types of them, are more likely to come up with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act. They tend to have power and are less hesitant to use it. They're also far more likely to cook up a Part Deux.

    It's the Neo-con idealogues, the fundamentalists, the radical think-tankers and secret society types that you really have to watch out for. They have wet dreams about kicking down peoples doors in the middle of the night, pulling them out of bed and taking them to detention camps for thought criminals. And shucks, it seems they're exactly who's in charge.

    As for Gore, he would rather make out with his wife that tie up and torture some simpering anti-war liberal. On the other hand, I am convinced Perle & Wolfowitz masturbate to Soldier of Fortune and George Orwell's 1984. Especially Perle. He is one truly sick and twisted motherfucker. He IS a James Bond villian, probably the one with the pet cat.