House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2

The House of Representatives voted on bill to reinstate the draft by Democrat Charles Rangel (NY), and defeated it soundly, 402-2. The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it. The rumors reached urban legend status, leading the House Republicans to take the uncommon step of voting on a bill that was not under remotely serious consideration. The two voting in favor of the bill were Democrats John Murtha (PA) and Pete Stark (CA), who was one of the cosponsors. Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will not address the issue.

Comments

GOOD!

[thief_inc]

Thank God. It was political smoke and mirrors anyways. As a veteran I can say without a doubt in my mind, no military members want draftees. If you can get enough people to serve voluntarily maybe you shouldn't be fighting.

Re:GOOD!

[dtfinch]

The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel to prevent wars. His stated intentions:
...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility.

His point was that we'd be less likely to go to war if people of all classes, rich and poor, had to fight.

Re:GOOD!

[MrWa]

And maybe, if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily. This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)

War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.

That is what reinstating the draft would accomplish. Along with getting enough troops to do the whole thing right; something which anyone serving should want to happen. To say that draftees are no good at fighting spits in the face of many, many veterans that have served in past wars (WWI,WWII, Vietnam...) and performed admirably. As a veteran I can speak for myself (and not everyone else, as you seemed to think you are entitled) when I say that everyone in a democracy should be forced to serve - if not in the military, then in some form of civil duty - to enforce the need to participate. Maybe then we would not have presidents elected with less than half of the voters, which compromise less than half the eligible voting population!

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich fighting a war? Duh, I thought that was disproved by the conduct of Bush Jr.

Re:GOOD!

[jim_v2000]

As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily.

Exactly, they are there voluntarily. How would you feel if you volunteered to do something good for your country, and got spit on for it? You probably wouldn't volunteer again, nor would others be encouraged to do so. Support your troops!

This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)

Volunteer soldiers DO have families and friends too.

War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money.

Ok, the military is not a free education and exercise program. That comes as a perk to the real job, which is being a soldier. And what do soldiers do? Go to battle. That's the job description. Soldiers know what they are in for when they volunteer, although they may hope that they don't see battle.

Re:GOOD!

[Apreche]

Draftees are no good, and here is why. Take me for example. I'm 22.5 years old, prime for the draft. I refuse to kill people. If a draft comes I have mutiple escape and fallback plans in place to get away. If I go to war, I will refuse to kill people. I will put my life and the lives of whoever is with me in extreme danger. I will be completely useless, in fact it would be better not to draft me than draft me.

Now, if the war was a real war. Like if someone invaded the US and we were sending them home. Then I might change my mind. Heck, I might enlist. But as for a war like this, which is incredibly unpopular, you really don't want draftees. We really didn't learn any lessons from Vietnam at all did we?

Re:GOOD!

[flink]

Exactly, they are there voluntarily. How would you feel if you volunteered to do something good for your country, and got spit on for it? You probably wouldn't volunteer again, nor would others be encouraged to do so. Support your troops!

That kinda presuposes that you think what's going on in Iraq is good for the country. If that's the criteria, then there are quite a few troops who don't support our troops. I have friends in the military. I don't support what they are doing, but I don't respect them any less for it. It's not their fault that their boss is an asshole.

Re:GOOD!

[ZenHarbinger]

I don't see what that has to do with it. It's not like we get to decide if we go to war. There's no public vote for it.

And I doubt any congressmen will be drafted.

All we can do is then vote out the congressmen whom we disagree with.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

I will be completely useless

That's a cop out. Many conscientious objectors served valiantly as medics or in other capacities that did not require them to kill. These people were as brave and honorable as those who fought on the front lines, with whom they worked. (In a way more so, because they couldn't defend themselves)

We really didn't learn any lessons from Vietnam at all did we?

Sure we did. The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.

Re:GOOD!

[MindStalker]

Yes, but it doesn't force the generals to mix the volunteer troops with the draft troops. The draft troops would be left at home. But seriously any ideas how much this would cost us in extra training, food, housing, and personel to handle the drafties.

Re:GOOD!

[N3WBI3]

Ill start by saying I think the war was a mistake.

War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.

This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars! You should not join the military for money, skills or anyother reason unless you are willing to fight a war. Its not a training program.

Re:GOOD!

[MrWa]

This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars!

And this is how the Army advertises to get people to sign up? Didn't think so. Most people do NOT join the military thinking they will get the chance to go be shot at or kill someone. Most join because they couldn't afford to go to college, weren't smart enough, or some other reason. A large portion do join because they understand the military and want to be part of it - that is NOT the majority. $35,000 or whatever it is now, along with a marketable skill, is why people join, right or wrong.

Re:GOOD!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Right, b/c all those weapons* that were supposed to make war too terrible have put end to war.

*crossbows, rifles, automatic weapons, nuclear arms etc.

Re:GOOD!

[anaesthetica]

That doesn't really make sense though: rich people have always been able to avoid the draft, while poor people were always stuck with it. Introducing a draft does little to nothing to change the rich-poor divide in the armed services. Further, except in times of great conflict, the United States, like all liberal democracies, has avoided compulsory military service, opting instead for a fully civilian-controlled volunteer army. Mandating that kids join the lowest ranks isn't going to change how the Generals fight America's war either.

Re:GOOD!

[anaesthetica]

...if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

This is just about the most anti-democratic statement I've ever heard on slashdot. Why parent thinks it's acceptable to run roughshod over people's freedoms simply to make a political point against a war they object to is inconceivable to me.

Re:GOOD!

[ivan256]

...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

Ever hear him talk about it? When I was listening to an interview with him yesterday it sounded like what he really means is that he thinks all his collegues in congress are racists and wouldn't send our troops to war if there were more white people enlisted. Nice, huh?

Either way, the last thing we need is a law that makes our government hesitate to use the military when it needs to.

Re:GOOD!

[N3WBI3]

And this is how the Army advertises to get people to sign up? Most people do NOT join the military thinking they will get the chance to go be shot at or kill someone. Most join because they couldn't afford to go to college, weren't smart enough, or some other reason.

I am not saying most people join for that reason, I am saying that those who do are perhaps too stupid to be given explosives. We average a war about every 15 years, hell Im not even 30 and we have had Two wars (Iraq /Afg 2003, and Iraq 1991) A bush of military actions (Panama, Graneda, Libya, ...) in my lifetime.

$35,000 or whatever it is now, along with a marketable skill, is why people join, right or wrong.

And they get that (I dont think a private makes 35k), but there is an obligation they have to meet.

Re:GOOD!

[the gnat]

Agreed. This is social engineering at its worst - using the power of government to force citizens into involuntary servitude (that's what a draft is, folks) as a method of promoting peaceful thoughts? You don't have to be a diehard libertarian to object to this sort of interference in our personal lives.

Look, if we were really in a fight for our survival (I'd include WWII in that) and the volunteer army wasn't big enough, I'd support the draft - and probably volunteer, if they could find me a job wrangling computers instead of shooting at people. Under any other circumstances, Rangel can go fuck himself.

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent point. Dollars-to-donuts none of the anti-Bushdot mods will pick up on it, though, or at least have the fortitude to look at something which jeopardizes their own positions.

Re:GOOD!

[JimFromJersey]

useless?!?! heck no, off to graves registration with you. Enjoy the horror.

Re:GOOD!

[Slime-dogg]

Of course, if it happens that you do not do your job as a soldier, drafted or not, and disobey orders in that respect, you will end up dead. That's what the punishment for treason is.

When it comes to being a soldier, drafted or not, it is the values and protection of your country that come before your own. There is a country's trust on you, and if you willingly fail because you do not agree, you face steep punishment. This is why you can get shot for falling asleep or being drunk while doing guard duty.

If you don't really like the rules of the country, work to change them. While doing that, it's your duty to abide by what is in place. If you don't want to do that, leave the country.

Re:GOOD!

[ronfar]

That is, of course, because the only way Liberty can exist in America is if the government is forcing people to do things.

Of course, personally, I would prefer not to serve myself, maybe the government could just force me to let some troops stay in my house for free instead? I can't imagine any real American having a problem with that, think of the housing costs it would save!

Re:GOOD!

[MrWa]

I am not saying most people join for that reason, I am saying that those who do are perhaps too stupid to be given explosives.

Perhaps they are but that is how things are done. On a submarine, for example, the lowliest person on the boat is given the job to drive. People are tricked (perhaps too strong a word, but basically true) into joining the military based on all sorts of reasons other than "go kill people" and then conditioned into following orders exactly.

They did, in truth, volunteer for what they are doing. At the same time, they should be supported and honored for doing something that the majority of people are not willing to do.

My point is that a volunteer military distances the hardship and sacrifice from the general populace. This makes waging a war easier - which is the wrong direction to take things. We shouldn't say "war is the last resort" and then glorify it (video games, movies, etc.), not show the consequences (editted newscasts), and shelter those people in whose name the war is being fought (U.S citizens.)

The answer is most likely not a draft - partly for the reasons that others have posted (inefficient, non-willing soldiers are not the ideal choice) but giving the military and government the wherewithal and freedom to fight in our name, without the checks and balances that a draft puts in place, is not a good idea. As the military becomes more high-tech and less people are needed to make war, this will become an even bigger problem.

Re:GOOD!

[multimed]

Which is a an excellenet point. It is an admirable thing to try and get people to really stop and think about something and the ramifications of it before making a decision. BUT I question whether it should be done by bringing up a bill that you have no intention of passing. He could have gotten the floor to speak his mind on the issue when they voted for authorization or any other time it would be relavent.

And while I certainly agree with some of Rangel's points, this bill, and the Senates have been used by dishonest people as evidence of the whole "Bush is planning to bring back the draft" lie. It's dirty politics plain and simple. Not that Bush isn't getting what he deserved after some of the things his supporters did during the primary vs. McCain but that doesn't make it any less slimy.

Re:GOOD!

[jim_v2000]

I do think what's going on in Iraq is a good thing. A free Middle East nation is one less nation for terrorists to draw recruits from. Just think. If you're a poor, repressed Iraqi living under Saddam, you're not going to have a lot going for you and you're going to be a heck of a lot more likely to listen to a terrorist recruiter. An Iraqi who has a good job and prospects in a free Iraq, on the other hand, would be more likely to tell the terrorist to screw off.

Re:GOOD!

[scowling]

I guarantee that the number of Iraqi-born terrorists is greater now than there were under Saddam. I guarantee that the number of anti-American terrorists worldwide is greater now than there were when Saddam was in power.

I guarantee that the Iraqi people are no more free now and will not be any more free in future than they were under Saddam.

The US gained absolutely nothing from the invasion.

Re:GOOD!

[scowling]

When it comes to being a soldier, drafted or not, it is the values and protection of your country that come before your own

I reject that ethic. The values of and protection of my country do not come before my own interests if that service is compelled upon me by threat of punishment.

My integrity would require that I take a bullet in the head from a superior officer rather than actively serve in the military under duress.

Re:GOOD!

[Lord Kano]

And maybe, if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

Are you going to volunteer yourself for a ride in one of the flag draped metal coffins to drive that point home? I will not.

I'll fight for my country. I'll put my life on the line for my countrymen, but I won't go to war for Israel. That's what our presence in the Middle East is all about.

LK

Re:GOOD!

[whovian]

Exactly, they are there voluntarily. How would you feel if you volunteered to do something good for your country, and got spit on for it? You probably wouldn't volunteer again, nor would others be encouraged to do so. Support your troops!

I didn't think that true volunteers go in expecting some kind of external gratification based on their choice and effort. Pure volunteering is due to personal convictions.

Re:GOOD!

[The Angry Mick]

Mandating that kids join the lowest ranks isn't going to change how the Generals fight America's war either

The point wasn't to get the generals to change they way they fight the wars, but rather to change the way the politicians think before they start the wars. If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head.

Re:GOOD!

[Shakrai]

Right, b/c all those weapons* that were supposed to make war too terrible have put end to war.

Nuclear weapons have put an end to large scale wars. Do you seriously think that if it wasn't for nukes WW2 wouldn't have been proceeded by WW3 in short order?

Nukes raise the cost of war to the point where it is unthinkable. There's simply nothing worth fighting over badly enough to risk New York or Moscow (and the millions of people therein) being turned into glass parking lots.

Re:GOOD!

[Shakrai]

Further, except in times of great conflict, the United States, like all liberal democracies, has avoided compulsory military service, opting instead for a fully civilian-controlled volunteer army

Define "great conflict"? If you look at every war the United States has fought we've used compulsory military service in at least half of them -- going all the way back to the Civil War.

And give the Democrats who purposed this some credit. Even if the rich people's children found ways to avoid service (this is not a sure thing anymore -- in theory almost anybody is eligible -- student deferments won't work anymore) the "masses of society" would be compelled to serve. Do you really think the general American public would stand for a war if they themselves would have to go and fight it? Why do you think there was so much political opposition to Vietnam?

Re:GOOD!

[Shakrai]

A free Middle East nation is one less nation for terrorists to draw recruits from

Really? Do you think some imposed notion of "freedom" (remember we are talking about a country with no Democractic traditions whatsoever) enforced under the boot of an occupying country means anything when you only have electric for two hours of the day and your wife can't go down to the market without a risk of being beaten or raped?

If you're a poor, repressed Iraqi living under Saddam, you're not going to have a lot going for you and you're going to be a heck of a lot more likely to listen to a terrorist recruiter

And they have a lot going for them now? Again, I ask you, what does freedom mean if you can't even keep normal crimes (murder, robbery, rape) under control? That's not even talking about the insurgency (car bombings, shootings, assassinations, etc) which is also taking it's toll on the Iraqi people. Why the hell do you think the Taliban was initially popular among the Afghani people in spite of their policies?

I dare submit that freedom is worthless if you are taking a chance with your life everytime you leave the house to buy bread or go to work.

Re:GOOD!

[SnapShot]

I don't know about being a cop out. If you truely don't support a war, then for you to be a concientous objector in a non-combat role just frees up a slot for someone else to pick up that rifle. Different wars may call for different judgments. My grandfather was a contientious objector (as a Quaker) in WWII and spent the war as a smoke jumper in the Rockies which was pretty dangerous duty considering the technology of the time. Many Quakers my father's age who could have been concientous objectors during Vietnam, however, thought that war was as a scam and refused to take the "easy out" and burnt their draft cards rather than registering for alternate service.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

Is the freedom you enjoy not worth anything to you?

Re:GOOD!

[Matrix272]

Do you think some imposed notion of "freedom" (remember we are talking about a country with no Democractic traditions whatsoever) enforced under the boot of an occupying country ...?

Like Japan in 1945? Did they have electricity for more than 2 hours a day back then?

And they have a lot going for them now? Again, I ask you, what does freedom mean if you can't even keep normal crimes (murder, robbery, rape) under control?

Like New York City... now? Or LA? Or Chicago in the 1930's?

That's not even talking about the insurgency (car bombings, shootings, assassinations, etc) which is also taking it's toll on the Iraqi people. Why the hell do you think the Taliban was initially popular among the Afghani people in spite of their policies?

Like the Nazi's after WWII? Wasn't there continued fighting for quite a while after the treaty was signed in 1945? Oh, and what's FDR's exit strategy for Germany and Japan?

It's really a good thing that Germany and Japan never became free. They were going just fine the way it was... they didn't need democracy. They probably wouldn't have known what to do with it anyway. Those silly Japs / Nazis.

Re:GOOD!

[Shakrai]

Like New York City... now? Or LA? Or Chicago in the 1930's?

Are you seriously comparing major American cities to Iraq? You can't be serious. Does your Mom worry about being raped and beaten if she goes to the market? Does she worry about her sons being forced into fighting the most powerful army in the world or killed if they won't? Was your Dad killed for trying to help rebuild your country?

I would live in the worst neighborhood in New York City (btw: NYC is a bad example -- the crime there is not that bad

It's really a good thing that Germany and Japan never became free. They were going just fine the way it was... they didn't need democracy. They probably wouldn't have known what to do with it anyway. Those silly Japs / Nazis.

You can't be serious. Germany and Japan were utterly defeated in World War Two. Their cities lay in complete ruins millions of people (military and civilian) were dead and (most importantly) we had broken their will to keep fighting.

Do you think we have broken the Iraqi will to fight? We never engaged and defeated them -- they simply ran away to fight another day. Perhaps if we had decided to go all the way in 1991 (after months of bombing and the complete and uncontested defeat... no make that annihilation of their armed forces) we would have broken their will and had a peaceful occupation and a chance to really reform the country.

Hell -- perhaps they would still have welcomed us as liberators and not conquerors if we hadn't knifed them in the back after the first Gulf War. "Rise up and oppose Saddam" we said -- then we said to Saddam "Sure you can go ahead and use your choppers" and watched on the sidelines while he ruthlessly crushed his own people.

In the early days of the war I even saw an Iraqi man come up and talk to our troops while they were doing some sort of news interview. His exact words were "Not like 1991. You not leave, right?". I'll never forget that image as long as I live. Ponder that the next time you are wondering why they didn't greet us with flowers and kisses ala Paris in 1944.

Re:GOOD!

[scowling]

If forced to defend that freedom under threat, then I do not logically have any freedom.

I would volunteer to defend my country at home. I would not volunteer to "defend" it in a foreign land. And I would never serve if drafted.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

I would volunteer to defend my country at home.


Fair enough, but I would hope the war would never come to here.

Re:GOOD!

[jim_v2000]

Uh...and you base these guarantees on what information?

Re:GOOD!

[jim_v2000]

Do you think we have broken the Iraqi will to fight?

Who do you think we are fighting over there? The Iraqi people? You seem to, and that's completely wrong. The Iraqi people have no will to fight, as the fight is not directed at them. The ones who are fighting are the insurgents/terrorists, who do not represent the Iraqi people. Most of the insurgents in Iraq are either former Republican Guard soldiers or fighters from other countries, like Iran, Sudan, etc. The goal in Iraq is not to break the will of the Iraqi people. Our fight is not with them. Our goal is to give them a government that will not repress them, and equip them to defend themselves.

In the early days of the war I even saw an Iraqi man come up and talk to our troops while they were doing some sort of news interview. His exact words were "Not like 1991. You not leave, right?". I'll never forget that image as long as I live.

Good, because there you see why we must stay and see this through. The Iraqis want to be free, and they know that the US is there to help them obtain their freedom. They DON'T want us to leave this time, until the work is done.

Re:GOOD!

[scowling]

Khruschev said it best. Paraphrasing: "Why would we ever want to invade America? Everybody there has a gun!"

Re:GOOD!

[Matrix272]

Are you seriously comparing major American cities to Iraq? You can't be serious.

Why not? Why is that such a terrible example? Most of the USA is peaceful, with only the major cities being hotspots for crime, just like Iraq. How many murders were there in Chicago last year, or LA, or New York? Iraq is a country of 25 million people, and New York has what... 10 million or so? Take whatever the number is for New York and multiply it by 2.5 and you'll get a number much higher than the deathtoll in Iraq in 2003.

There's only 3 arguments when it comes to casualties: either Iraq is better than the USA, they're the same, of Iraq is worse. My above argument addresses the first 2, and my next one will address the third.

Oh, and by the way, according to Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine, crime in the US seems to be pretty bad, with several thousand deaths every year from firearms... so by using that logic, since Iraq has a far higher ratio of firearms:people, Iraq SHOULD have more firearm-related deaths.

You can't be serious. Germany and Japan were utterly defeated in World War Two. Their cities lay in complete ruins millions of people (military and civilian) were dead and (most importantly) we had broken their will to keep fighting.

Forgive me, but don't you see skinheads praising Hitler in the streets, even today? We obviously didn't kill every white-supremecist, so I guess we didn't "utterly defeat" them. By the same token, we'll never kill every terrorist in the world, but what we can do is show them that it's not worthwhile to try to kill us because the penalty is far greater than the potential reward. That's why the remnants of the German and Japanese armies (particularly the Japanese, due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) stopped fighting back, and that's why the terrorists in Iraq will stop fighting eventually.

By the way, here's a question for you: Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? (Keeping in mind that he "ruthlessly crushed his own people".)

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.

That is simply untrue. The administration (perhaps not Bush himself, but Rumsfeld at the very least) were making inquiries into the feasability & result of reinstating the draft. If they had no intention of using it, why even waste time researching it?

Despite that, I don't seriously think Bush would be stupid enough to actually go through with it after hearing an extremely vocal opposition.

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> it's your duty to abide by what is in place. If you don't want to do that, leave the country.

Why, because you said so? I can't afford to leave the country, so I'm stuck here. But I'm not going to just bend over & take it when laws are unjust. I act how I act and if someone doesn't liek it, they can deal with it.

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> they should be supported and honored for doing something that the majority of people are not willing to do.

The majority of people do not want to work in a sewage treatment plant either, although it's necessary. Should we honor those keeping up our sewage infrastructure as much as those who keep up the political/military one? They are doing a job they offered to do. They are government employees who are treated like slaves. They offered themselves into that slavery (yeah, "slaves" is a bit over-the-top). Where is the honor in that?

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> I would hope the war would never come to here.

Every person in the world wants that. We just happen to be lucky that it rarely has.

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head

But it WON'T BE THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS! Rich people can afford lawyers & have connections to make sure their children are never in harm's way. Of course, there will be (and are) some honorable people in government that wouldn't do that, but I believe most would.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

Because it's the President's advisors' job to study EVERY possibility. I have no doubts that the Pentagon has plans on file to invade Canada, not because they plan on doing it, just because if something really crazy happens (like China takes over Canada for something), there's a plan they can look at.

The draft legislation was introduced by Charlie Rangel and other highly partisan and, well, intellectually-challenged Democrats in a transparent (and sleazy) attempt to get mileage out of the fact that they could say that there's draft legislation going through Congress to scare people into thinking Bush wants the draft. No one wants the draft, and as you've no doubt seen, Bush closed the debate (the first or second) by emphatically stating that there will be no draft, which Kerry echoed. I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.

By the way, that draft legislation was tossed out of Congress faster than the 2004 Tip O'Neill swimsuit calendar, it was nothing but more FUD from America's House of FUD.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, it has in a big way, but so far, it hasn't stayed here. I believe that's in part because the bad guys are swarming like hornets in Iraq, because once a democracy is in place there, they've lost a huge ally and a place to work.

Regardless of what you have to say about President Bush, the word is that al-Qaeda is worried about losing terrorist credibility because they haven't pulled off anything big against the the U.S. in over 3 years. That doesn't mean they won't nuke one of our cities tomorrow (God forbid!), but so far someone's obviously doing their job.

Re:GOOD!

[The Angry Mick]

You're right, hesiod. And that's what's sad about this whole mess. Even if there was a draft law passed that made military service mandatory for every U.S. citizen (similar to Israel), the rich would still find a way to dodge it. That's what should piss us off.

Re:GOOD!

[ronfar]

Hmm, I got modded down as a troll, this is what I wrote:

That is, of course, because the only way Liberty can exist in America is if the government is forcing people to do things.

Of course, personally, I would prefer not to serve myself, maybe the government could just force me to let some troops stay in my house for free instead? I can't imagine any real American having a problem with that, think of the housing costs it would save!

Now to go recomment my other Troll...

Re:GOOD!

[hesiod]

> I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.

I was wondering that myself. I've heard both sides (IIRC) talk about increasing troop numbers. We're shorthanded as it is and I seriously doubt large numbers of people will suddenly sign up to go to war. Maybe they could pull troops out of somewhere else, but I honestly don't know from where.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

Germany, for one. Germany is a good location as a staging area, etc, but we are not defending them against the Soviet Union any more. I think it's quite reasonable to pull out some troops and redeploy them elsewhere.

I'm betting the same is true for a lot of other locations. Now that we are actually having to fight wars, it probably makes sense to not have so many troops sitting around in so many places when it's not critical for them to be there.

The other thing I understand is that there are more troops available if they could be made ready. One of the problems in the last 10 years was that many of divisions were not really ready to take action if it was needed. The 150,000 in Iraq are actually a fairly small fraction of our total forces (about 11%). I suspect there are a lot of people we can get over there without having to recruit or conscript large numbers of soldiers.

Previous related article...

[neitzsche]

U.S. Plans targeted Draft for Computer Personnel

So while the wheels are turning putting things into place, the house votes this issue away.

What's to stop them from reintroducing it (or a similar bill) immediately *after* the election?

If our politicans routinely acted ethically, I wouldn't be worried, but right now I'm looking for my tin-foil hat!

Re:Previous related article...

[TheBeck]

What's to stop them from reintroducing it (or a similar bill) immediately *after* the election?
Ever herd the term political suicide? That would apply to any who "flip-flopped" (as the repubs call it) here.

Re:Previous related article...

[hesiod]

> Ever herd the term political suicide?

If it's immediately after the election, Bush wouldn't have to worry about it. The other Republicans can take the risk, because after 4 years they will have been able to look back and say that they were either tricked, claim it was a great idea -- "sure, we're still at war but think how many more would have died!" -- or hope the public forgets about it (not likely).

All in all, I don't think any politician is willing to take that bet, but you never know: reason hasn't stopped them (all of them, Dems too) before.

Naughty, pudge

[Pluvius]

The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft (I don't think any politician in his right mind would publically support a draft today, except to make a point), but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.

Rob

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is. We have 30,000 troops in South Korea..they could be moved into the Iraqi theater.

And if the rest of the world thinks that South Korea should indeed be a sovereign nation and that North Korea would be a threat to that goal, I'm sure the UN will gladly gather a force of 30,000 Blue Helmets to replace the departing Americans. The US has manned the DMZ for 50+ years...maybe its time the rest of the world ante up to that table.

We could also accelerate our departure from Germany and move those troops to Iraq. Again, if supporting the local German economies is something that the rest of the world thinks foreign militaries should be doing in Germany, I'm sure Kofi Anan will have no trouble replacing the departing Yanks with UN troops. We'll make sure to give the Army bases a fresh coat of paint and everything before we leave.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Pluvius]

So you're saying that we should destroy two of our closest, strongest allies so we can fight a needless war. Sadly, Bush probably agrees with you.

Rob

Re:Naughty, pudge

[salesgeek]

but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.

I find your lack of confidence disturbing.

W

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah woah woah...destroy? How so? Isn't maintaining the peace on the Korean Pennisula an issue the whole world can agree on? And if so, why can't the whole world be expected to share the burden? Or are you saying that even if they did, there is no way the rest of the ~200 nations of the world, acting in unision, could ever replace 30,000 US troops?

And if your second "destroyed" nation was Germany, I'd have to ask you..who the hell is going to attack Germany these days? Or are you saying that if the US left, the Germans would get that "itch" again and the next thing you know Frenchmen are surrendering? (Which is a major reason the US was in Germany for 50 years in the first place, it just gets forgotten and everybody celebrates the Miracle that is the German turnaround.)

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Pluvius]

I'm saying that we shouldn't (in fact, mustn't) rely on the UN to do what is in our best interests when we have the power to do it ourselves. Protecting South Korea and Germany is almost undeniably in America's best interests. Invading Iraq, I would argue, is not.

BTW, I meant that Germany would be destroyed (or at least badly damaged) economically (you know, since you brought "local German economies" up yourself). Economic devastation in Germany, incidentally, was the prime cause of World War 2.

Rob

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't argue that it is in the US's interests to do these things, (except maybe artifically prop up Germany's economy, that I don't think is a good use of US treasure. Let the EU handle easing the burden on Germany if they must.).. my point is that if it is in the US's interest, it just may be in the rest of the world's interest too.

Where is Kerry on getting the rest of the world to share the Korean Burden? He seems to be very motivated into getting them to share the burden of a war he is now calling a mistake, how about getting them to share the burden in Korea? This thread started with someone stating that we don't have enough troops to do all the things that Bush wants...hell, in that case, we don't have the troops to do everything that Kerry wants either because he certainly has not backed away from the US's continued, long term presence in Iraq, nor elsewhere in the world. If anything, he's trying to out-Hawk Bush. (I'd do more, I'd do it better. More equipment, more troops, more, more, more.)

Re:Naughty, pudge

[overunderunderdone]

That may be YOUR argument, but that is not the argument of the emails that were going around to college students.

As for your argument. Rumsfeld (and by extension this administration) has been a big advocate for a numerically smaller, higher tech military for a very long time. I very much doubt Rumsfeld would EVER want a draft, which is just completely counter to his entire approach to the military.

On the other hand it was KERRY that pledged to enlarge the military by an additional 40,000 troops, has criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has criticized the planned drawdown of troops in Western Europe and South Korea. Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.

Bush IS a cowboy, he might get us into more wars. Then again Kerry is on record essentially favoring issuing an empty threat* a position that is perhaps even MORE risky in the long run. It is a dangerous world and even the most dovish President may (regretfully) find us in a war. Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?

*Voting FOR an war ultimatum to gain "diplomatic leverage", but then stating he could conceive of "no circumstances" where he would have followed through.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[eyeye]

The current scheme is very clever and works, get the poorest kids and tell them they can go to college if they join the army.

It works very well (in getting them in the first place at least). Now there are a couple of problems.

1) Young Kids are pretty irresponsible but even in the media challenged present day US they must have noticed there is a good chance they might be killed or maimed.

2) To continue the dominance of the middle east the US needs even more troops than it currently has out there. It cannot even hold iraq so the neo-cons plans for Iran (or whatever country israel complains about) dont have enough troops to be carried out. Of course note that while Israel supplies false information, inflammatory rhetoric and almost direct control over US international policy you will note it wont send its own soldiers.

So in short a draft is inevitable for future US plans.

No doubt the republicans will flip flop as soon as necessary - the public are too stupid to even notice. (like they havent noticed that every reason for invading iraq has turned out to be bogus).

Re:Naughty, pudge

[ImaLamer]

On the other hand it was KERRY that ... criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan

"We never had enough troops on the ground."
Paul Bremer, October 4th 2004

Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.

It was Bush who ordered the military to stop using "Predator Drones" in their search for Osama bin Laden, not Kerry and the Democrats. (Just an example)

Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?

This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...

Re:Naughty, pudge

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course note that while Israel supplies false information, inflammatory rhetoric and almost direct control over US international policy

Not that I have any love for Israel whatsoever, in fact, I believe the US continued support for Israel is a huge mistake. Surely, though, you meant the DNC is supplying false information, etc.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[dbrutus]

During Schroeder's last campaign, a US pullout of troops in Germany was raised lots of times on the net as a response to his harsh antiamericanism. Every time that it was the Germans said, in effect, don't let the door hit you on the way out. It'll be an economic blow for them, sure, but I don't think we should worry about economic effects anymore than the Germans did. In reality, we should be worried about it significantly less.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

Ah, and don't forget the National Missile Defense System. With a 20% chance of success at intercepting nuclear missiles and a 0% chance of intercepting nuclear briefcases. That is a complete waste of money. All it did was piss off the world as we backed out of several international treaties in order to put it in place.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But if enough money is thrown at anything it should work, right?

-Republican Plan of Action

Re:Naughty, pudge

[bofkentucky]

Just like head start, department of education, Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and AFDC.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[AoT]

They didn't throw any money at head start, it's just another unfunded goernment mandate.

Not that the Dems are any better about unfunded government mandates mind you.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[pudge]

The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft

Uh ... that was a very commonly stated rumor, and unfortunately widely believed.

I know that this was not the reason the bill existed -- I never said it was, and I linked to the original story when Rangel introduced the bill which made the point you address here -- but the result over the past year or so is that many people thought there was some Republican plan to bring back the draft.

Re:Naughty, pudge

[bofkentucky]

um, http://cb1.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/hsfacts98.htm says otherwise, there are more if you search "head start" budget @ http://www.firstgov.gov/

Re:Naughty, pudge

[overunderunderdone]

This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...

I don't see why this is crazy. Rumsfeld has been deeply unpopular for long YEARS within the Pentagon (especially with the Army, especially with Infantry and Armor) because of his strong views on force structure.

Many of the retired Generals Kerry boasts about supporting him are the other side of that internal Pentagon debate, and given many of his own public statements & record on weapons systems development I think it's fair to conclude that he, at least in a broad sense, falls into that more traditional camp. Which as I pointed out relies far more on numerically large armored and infantry divisions.

Kerry would probably be far less aggressive, but should he find himself in a war anyway he has given every indication that he will choose to fight it with greater numerical superiority, and that he would not be as willing to draw down troops from Europe & South Korea.

A draft is highly unlikely in either event. But whatever small chance exists doesn't seem to me to cut against Bush any more than Kerry. Bush may be more likely to get us into another war, but conscript troops have no place in Rumsfeld's military doctrine - they are an anathema, less than useless to his way of thinking. Kerry is less likely to get us into a war, but with his stance he is more likely to use a LOT more troops if one comes to him and conscripts *could* play a role in the massed armor & infantry force structure that the generals supporting him believe in.

The ONLY way that you could say I'm "crazy" is if you believe Kerry is lying about his true positions on defense. I hope believing that Kerry is honest about his positions isn't "crazy" though.

My Opinion

[MBCook]

I've been staying away from the politics section (at least untill the election is over) because so many of the things I see make me very mad (the viewpoints), especially here on /. (which is quite liberal when I've very conservative).

That said, I don't see how anyone thought this was a serious issue, or that by electing Bush we would be bringing back the draft (as has been insinuated by some small groups, not the DNC as far as I know). First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).

My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)? I would piss off your voters, it would mean more wealthy people in the service (aren't republicans supposed to do things to FAVOR the wealthy?). The idea has never made sense to me.

Lets face it. Bringing back the draft has NO support. With the exception of a crackpot here or there, I would expect France to try to annex the US before I would expect the draft to have a real chance at comming back.

I'd also like to thank /. for pointing out that the only representatives pushing this were democrats. Whenever I've heard activists saying Bush would bring back the draft, they always fail to mention that part. Also note that CBS was snookered again the other day when they had some lady crying about how Bush would bring back the draft and her son would go get killed in Iraq. It turned out she was a known anti-Bush activist.

This was never a serious issue (in that it was not where near likely), but it has been interesting in the way of seeing how fast an urban legend can take hold. I heard a story (about a week ago) about a kid who convinced a friend to shoot him in the foot so he wouldn't get drafted. Then when he was at the hospital, it was pointed out to him that there was no draft.

How could two kids (they must have been high-school aged if they were worried about being drafted) not know there was no draft in the first place?

--End Mini-Rant---

Re:My Opinion

[dnb415]

I have to agree with you. This whole Draft thing as been wildly pushed out of control. The first point about the checks and balances is a great example of people ignoring our political system. The president really can't do much without the approval of congress, yet everyone is very adamant at blaming Bush. As MBCook stated there is no support for the draft, it was shot down 402-2. Also the bill was supported by a D, and further more Bill Frist (Senate majority leader) said the senate will not address it, move on people there will be no draft.

Re:My Opinion

[node 3]

First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).

Not a problem if the House and Senate have a Republican majority. If Bush says we need the draft to pursue the so-called "War on Terror", he'll get the draft. He'll even put on a heart-felt press conference where he says he searched his soul and decided that a draft was needed, and in other interviews, he'll say that he knows God wanted him to do it.

My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)?

You answered your own question. Just because you put it in parentheses doesn't make it wrong.

Bush really believes in using military force for whatever ends the US (meaning Cheney) desires. If Bush plans to keep up his warmongering, he'll need the draft. To actually win in Iraq, we'll have to increase our force in the nation. You can't win a war without winning the "hearts and minds" of the people you are occupying. Two ways to win their hearts and minds is to show them that you are there to help and are working for their best interest, the other is to beat them into submission. Bush has demonstrated he won't do the former, so we're stuck with the latter. The latter requires increased hostilities. To do that we'll either need *at least* twice the number of troops in Iraq, or we'll need to step up our actions to even greater horrors.

And that's just Iraq. Don't forget that war plans are already being drawn up for Iran and Syria, and in an amazing case of foolishness, Bush has even pointed his military desires towards Cuba. There's no way on Earth to fight those wars without the draft.

And that's assuming all stays "quiet" on the Korean Peninsula.

You might be rational enough to think that even if Bush is as ignorant as he's portrayed, there's no way he would bring about such a calamity of wars upon the US. But consider that if you believed (like Bush does) that the events in Revelations are a good thing, would you be a "girly-man" about the issue, or would your faith in the God of Revelations make it easier to make the insane decisions that eventually lead to WWIII?

Re:My opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you really don't care what is actually good for the country or the Army. You just want to punish those with political views different than yours, and to whip up opposition to the war. I've heard more enlightened views.

Re:My opinion

[Awptimus Prime]

No, AC, that isn't what my views represent at all.

There is no "punishment" here. People both pro and against the war would serve under a draft. What isn't fair about that?

If you don't understand how different the perception of war is when it is you or your son being carted off to fight, as compared to just watching 15 second clips on CNN, then you should definitely seek your own enlightenment.

Re:My Opinion

[spitzak]

I'm not sure what you have been reading, but NOT ONCE have I seen this mentioned anywhere without it clearly being stated that Democrats are behind the bill, unless you count unsubstatiated email.

Re:My opinion

[ezeri]

So basically you just want to spread around as much misery and bloodshed as possible.

"Let them and their kids go breath some DU dust, smell burning/decomposing bodies, watch a few friends die horrible deaths, and be forced to live off a private's salary."

You are actually WISHING, willfully HOPING that these people loose friends and loved ones for the benefit of your anti-war views. In my opinion that make you spineless coward, and scum. The military as it is, is made up of Volunteers, ie people who had the courage to put there money where there mouth is, people who wanted to serve there country. I would be willing to bet that you're the kind of heartless bastard that gets excited every time our soldiers die, or terrorists execute someone new, because it just goes to prove your views that the war is evil. Even if I agreed 100% that war was always an evil thing, and should be stopped at all costs, there is no justification for hoping misery and loss of life on others and there families. Yeah war sucks, everyone knows that, no sane human will tell you otherwise, but what you do is worse.

Re:My opinion

[(trb001)]

get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.

I'll bite, what channel are YOU watching? I watch a lot of FoxNews, which many on this site would argue is the equivalent of an RNC talking head, and nobody is talking about how great this war is. The most common questions asked revolve around "Is this war actually winnable?" and "Is the situation worsening?", and neither of them are rhetorical in either direction.

I flip to CNN and MSNBC on occasion as well, and those channels are both more pessimistic about the outcome. So unless you live in a remote, Republican controlled section of Texas, wtf?

--trb

Re:My opinion

[Rayonic]

> chickenhawks

If I can't support a war without having served in the military, then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times.

Re:My opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say people who want us to go to war at the drop of a hat don't have the best interest of the country at heart either. You just don't like reading a well reasoned argument on taking steps that would lead to a less militaristic society overall. I've not heard many less enlightened views.

Re:My Opinion

[dbrutus]

The US Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto's still dead and buried many years later in the US because of that vote even though the Senate's changed composition and Clinton's no longer president. Such a lopsided vote has a powerful influence that can stretch a very long time. A 400 vote margin in the House means that it would take us losing a city for a draft to get back on the table and even then it would be iffy.

Re:My opinion

[dbrutus]

Unless you're going to have a 6 year draft, with extensions, you're never going to get the kind of longevity needed to maintain a military that takes this few casualties during operations. The reason the Pentagon is opposed to a draft (and they are, viscerally) is that it's going to add to their troop losses by multiple factors of ten. If you think you can't make a political point without getting a lot of people killed, something's wrong with you.

Re:My opinion

[Your_Mom]

Oh man, this is completely OT, but that is the best one liner I have heard in quite some time.

Great one. I'm rippping it off from you. :)

Re:My Opinion

[squiggleslash]

Since the Kyoto agreement was written, there has not been a single vote on it in Congress or the Senate. In no real sense can it bee argued that the Senate "voted 95-0 against the Kyoto treaty."

The origins of this particular UL appear to be in that Rush Limbaugh found a vote that occured six months before the Kyoto summit which essentially declared some principles the Senate felt at the time to be important. As the Senate has never revisited the issue, we do not know if the actual decisions made at Kyoto made for a better compromise than those the Senate worked out. Limbaugh's argument is sophistry, but that hasn't stopped it from being repeated ad-nausium by him, his listeners, and his fellow travellers.

Re:My opinion

[Tyndmyr]

Bullshit he does. He just wants more equality in who goes to war... These volunteers come in large part from lower-middle class to poor families. How would I know? Im one of them. Most of us that are intelligent enough to think about it, would like the idea of everyone having an equal chance of serving. Not that I actually think a draft would work for this, but the concept is interesting.

It would suck to die in a foriegn war that you are pretty much not allowed to protest or take any part in deciding for, while those who can, dont risk their lives.

Re:My Opinion

[nelsonal]

You just gave even more support to his main point (that a roundly lopsided vote has a very long lasting effect). Crap the main point of the bill could have been to give $1 billion to ketchup studies but there isn't a senator who will associate their name (and take the political pounding that will come with it) with resurecting the Kyoto treaty.

Re:My opinion

[nelsonal]

War is a very, very serious idea. With a true draft that is reinforced since your best and brightest will be off prosecuting that war. While an all volenteer force is certainly better for morale and efficiency, the point of a draft force is that war should only be an option if and when enough of the country is behind the war that a draft force really isn't needed. While a draft was certainly in place in world war II was it really used? One statistic that changed my mind about the draft (even though I'm draft aged, single and fit enough to go straight to boot camp) was that under a draft we engaged in very few military actions. With a volenteer force the number of actions we send our military to has exploded (the theory was that since decison makers aren't risking their kids the standard of what is a just war is lower).

Re:My opinion

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I fully support gay marriage.

Re:My Opinion

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Not to shit on your parade, but the checks and balances have been pissed on so many times with this administration that it's almost a joke to bring it up.

Slice of PATRIOT, anyone?

Re:My Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the Republicans want to reinstate the draft. It's that they want to prosecute wars and they haven't got enough troops to do it. If Bush is reelected and Republicans still control Congress, I for one am not betting that they will look at the number of troops we have and decide they need to stop attacking people.

Re:My opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

So then either you're gay, or you're a "chickenqueer".

Makes sense, right? (Answer: no)

Re:My Opinion

[bmetzler]

I'm not sure what you have been reading, but NOT ONCE have I seen this mentioned anywhere without it clearly being stated that Democrats are behind the bill, unless you count unsubstatiated email.

I know CBS is becoming renown for running unsubstantiated stories, but the imply that CBS stories are know really emails? That's a stretch!

-Brent

Re:My Opinion

[spitzak]

I'm sorry, can you post a link to a CBS story that does not say that Democrats are the ones behind the bill?

Re:My Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

"The president really can't do much without the approval of congress, yet everyone is very adamant at blaming Bush."

Puhleaze. Explain the PATRIOT Act, then. Which nobody in Congress read. Which the White House pushed on Congress. Which they passed overwhelmingly just because the White House said they needed it. Sorry, checks and balances do not apply to the current state of affairs.

Re:My Opinion

[bmetzler]

I'm sorry, can you post a link to a CBS story that does not say that Democrats are the ones behind the bill?

Maybe this would help: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/09/27/Maxim/An other.Black.Eye.For.Cbs-736141.shtml

-Brent

Re:My Opinion

[spitzak]

There is no link to any CBS story in that article. It is simply repeating what you said.

Re:My Opinion

[bmetzler]

There is no link to any CBS story in that article. It is simply repeating what you said.

So you believe that the writer of that article was just making up his story about what CBS said?

-Brent

Re:My Opinion

[The Slashdot Guy]

No, checks and balances do apply in the current state of affairs.

If the other branches of the government are going along with White House instead of looking out for the best interest of their constituents (legislative) or the American people in general (judicial), then they are not doing their jobs and should take full responsibility for their actions.

Re:My opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to get that term to the mainstream media :)

Re:My opinion

[Awptimus Prime]

Actually, it is more a matter of taking responsibility than anything to do with being a political point.

Re:My Opinion

[Matrix272]

Slice of PATRIOT, anyone?

Didn't the Congress vote on the PATRIOT Act? I could have sworn they did...

Re:My opinion

[user no. 590291]

As opposed to your WISHING, willfully HOPING, that only the family members of the poor who have virtually no choice but the military for upward mobility are lost in Bush's war? If there's going to be a war, the burden should be shared equally among the classes--that includes you, Republican fanboy.

No, the argument is

[porkchop_d_clown]

that the secret plan is to pass those bills and have a fully operating draft by june of this year.

Given how many paniced brothers and sisters of mine received that e-mail, the Republicans did the right thing.

Re:No, the argument is

[Pluvius]

I realize that there was a hoax going around the Internet about it, but what I meant is that the only serious argument about the draft is that it will be required if the Bush administration "stays the course." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Rob

Machivellian....

[identity0]

Okay, did the dems seriously believe that people would fall for this? Or did they thinnk the repubs were so stupid and warmongering that they would support it even if it shot down their president's campaign? I don't think that kind of really blatant political manuevering would work, even in the U.S.; you have to make it more subtle.

I have been thinking though, that it might be in the best interests of the dems to just let Bush win this election and try to get their man in office in 2008. Think about it this way: no matter who's in office, a lot of bad shit is going to happen. There's going to be another terrorist attack sooner or later, Iraq is going to get worse, and the economy probobly won't improve anytime soon. If Kerry gets in this year, a lot of people might blame him for bad stuff that happens on his watch, and go "Look what happened when we voted democrat". It might be better for them to just let Bush deal with the consequences of his actions and let people see how bad his ideas really were, kina like how Nixon created a lot of disgust for the republicans after re-election.

But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.

Re:Machivellian....

[wibs]

Got to say I agree very much with your second point. A lot of bad shit is going to happen over the next four years, regardless of who's in office. That said, I'd rather have the person I want taking care of problems than the person who has gone in the opposite direction of what I wanted almost every single time.

Re:Machivellian....

[jgardn]

But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.

Which is why we need Bush in office. If you, a sensible American, is worried Bush might launch a few tactical nuclear warheads to make his point, how much sleep do you think Kim Jong Il and the mullahs of Iran are getting?

It's like Reagan. After more than one peace talk, the Russians came away thinking the end of the world was imminent, that all hope was lost for peace, and that the only way out was to surrender. You talk to the Russians in power at the time, and they literally thought that they were going to wake up with Marines in their bedrooms and American jets buzzing Moscow. They thought we had super weapons int he sky that could blow away their missiles on the launch pads. America was a monstrosity that was able to outproduce and outgun the Soviets on every scale. Our technology was so advanced it seemed like aliens from a futuristic society had been feeding the American scientists information.

Even thought Carter had basically the same technology and the same military, he couldn't inspire that blind fear and gnawing doubt in the enemies. He couldn't do it because he didn't have it where it counts.

We need the kind of president right now that can make a threat and have it mean something. Ask yourself: Remember the scene from Dirty Harry? he fires five or six shots and kills four of the robbers with his .45. Then he cocks the gun and points it at the last robber.

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire five or all six? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"

Now picture Bush saying this to Kim Jong Il. Except he has B-52s loaded with neutron bombs. And a vast fleet of aircraft carriers and battleships and endless hordes of infantry. "I know what you're thinking. Can we prosecute a war in two seperate countries and still maintain the balance of power in Asia? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"

Now envision Kerry. I'm sorry, I can't see Kerry saying to Kim Jong Il, "Mr. Kim, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" It's just not him.

That's what we need in the White House - someone with some real cajones.

Re:Machivellian....

[aelbric]

A bit colorful, but you are probably correct. It's not enough to have the saber. You have to rattle it once in a while to have any effect though.

Re:Machivellian....

[SuiteSisterMary]

The flip side, of course, is that an animal backed into a corner, with nowhere to run, will generally lash out.

Or, put another way, it works great until your bluff is called. The Soviets, at least, didn't want to die. Rattling your sabre at somebody who honestly believes that if they die trying to kill you, they will be assured a place in Paradise tends to not quite have the effect you're hoping for.

Re:Machivellian....

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You're right of course, which is why you have to make the consequences of killing themselves so servere that it no longer becomes attractive. Ie they kill 10 of yours, you kill 100 or 1000 of theirs eventually they run out of suicide bombers before you run out of bombs.

Re:Machivellian....

[AoT]

Because that's worked so well for the Israelis.

Re:Machivellian....

[JimFromJersey]

that would be a .44 ... the most powerful handgun in the world...

The funny thing is iirc the N. Koreans want Bush to be re-elected because they want to deal with a powerful leader that will get any deals through congress.

What I want is the president to be from the party that is in the minority in congress so that we'll stop spending money.

Re:Machivellian....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now picture Bush saying this to Kim Jong Il. "

Frankly, I can't. I can picture Kerry doing it. He, after all, has demonstrated the ability and willingness to kill in actual combat situations. Not every man can do that, but he did it when it was needed. Bush, on the other hand, can't even tell his own government what to do, but gets told what to do from his own people. He talks tough, but his whole life has been one long party. No way he has it in him to do what you are talking about. He'll screw it up somehow like he's managed to screw everything else in his life up.

Re:Machivellian....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they've proven that it does work. Look at Syria. Look at Egypt. Look at Iraq.

Re:Machivellian....

[AoT]

If we weren't talking about suicide bombers I'd agree with you. You see guerilla warfare does not work the same way as State versus State warfare. The whole point of guerilla warfare is that you can't distinguish the guerillas from the general population, thus you are forced to inflict casualties upon civilians thereby increasing support for the guerillas. 10 to 1 casualty rates are pretty standard in guerilla warfare, but it isn't the casualty rates that determine the outcome.

Re:Machivellian....

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be a .44 ... the most powerful handgun in the world...

You're forgetting about the .88 magnum... it shoots through schools.

Re:Machivellian....

[Rayonic]

Actually, the latest Israeli offensive, and the fence/wall, has been rather successful at stopping attacks. The last major suicide attack in Israel, for instance, was 'revenge' for something Israel did six months prior.

You see it in newspapers here and there -- Israel has practically won the second "Intifada". Check here. Newer updates are at the bottom, including links to LA Times and BBC stories.

Re:Machivellian....

[AoT]

The wall is a completely different story. That does seem to be stopping the attacks. The point was that simply killing lots of "them", whomever that may be, does not a victory make.

Re:Machivellian....

[Rayonic]

Well, most of the wall is actually just fence. Electronic, not electric, and no mines or anything along it. Thus if whenever tries to get past the thing, then it's killing time. The fence/wall wouldn't last long if it wasn't guarded with deadly force.

Re:Machivellian....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the fence plus the much more aggressive targetting of terrorist leaders. The fence isn't complete yet.

My opinion

[Awptimus Prime]

Personally, I wish the draft would go back into effect.

Every day, I come to work and listen to chickenhawks go on about how we should crush Iraq, Iran, N Korea, etc. Then I go to the bar and every other person seems to be talking about how brave GWB is for sending someone else's kids off to fight. Then, I go home and turn on the news and get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.

Now, it is obvious this pro-war talk is coming from people who know for a fact they will face no personal danger to themselves. With a fair draft, we could start sending these people over who support this mess so much. Let them and their kids go breath some DU dust, smell burning/decomposing bodies, watch a few friends die horrible deaths, and be forced to live off a private's salary. I'd be willing to bet we'd get the hell out of Iraq and distance ourselves from most of the conflicts people make such a big stand on.

So, my hat is off to the 2 people in our government who actually understand why a draft is important. It is too bad the rest of the nation doesn't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is.

Sigh.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Who introduced those bills? The democrats.

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

Who would freak if the draft was reinstated, because it would require years to reactivate old training bases and divert seasoned combat troops back state side to teach the draftees? The Pentagon.

Who actually wants a draft? Nobody, except, possibly, a few radical leftists who want to be able to say "we told you so".

Re:Sigh.

[Pluvius]

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?

Rob

Re:Sigh.

[dtfinch]

The bill was never intended (by the democrat who introduced it) to be construed a a republican plot, or to ever go to a vote. It was a "what if" argument intended to make reprentatives consider the consequences to average citizens of voting in favor of unnecessary wars.

Re:Sigh.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

By inventing consequences after the fact?

Re:Sigh.

[multimed]

That's true. And there's something to be said for trying to get people especially politicians to actually stop and think about something. But it is absolutely slimy and dirty politics for Kerry et. al. to say say "If Bush wins he'll reinstate the draft" and use the bills as a evidence. The Replublicans has no choice but to bring it to a vote in order to kill the bill and kill the FUD.

You're not the only one thinking about 2008.

[porkchop_d_clown]

There are some Democrats hoping Kerry will lose so that Hillary can run in 2008; likewise there are some Republicans who want Kerry to win so they can avoid having to deal with a Madam President in 2009.

Re:You're not the only one thinking about 2008.

[(trb001)]

Ha! Hillary stands no chance. I feel pretty comfortable saying the entire Republican electorate would be against her, and I seriously doubt she could get the Democrats to unanimously back her either. She's too harsh and not very likable...kinda reminds me of Teresa Heinz, actually.

--trb

The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[porkchop_d_clown]

that hoax quite seriously.

In any case, I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

Similarly, I think the odds of a President Kerry suddenly getting tens of thousands of French and German troops into Iraq to be long at best and more likely wishful. Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all, let alone for an extended trip to the desert. Plus there's the fact that France has stated that they don't care who the President is, they won't deploy troops to Iraq.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Pluvius]

I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

But that would be flip-flopping, not staying the course!

Rob

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Spectra72]

Yes, it is amazing to watch the leap of logic required to believe that Kerry is going to convince nations (with their own self-interest) to send their troops into the mess that is currently Iraq just so the US can lower its percentage of the casualties.

That's a great sales pitch. US: "Hey France, we want you to take on 15% of our casualties...how's about it?" France: "Let's see, currently we're taking 0% casualties and we get to pontificate about the American Pig-Dogs at our leisure...er, how about NOT."

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[totatis]

Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all, let alone for an extended trip to the desert.

Altrough there is no way that France will deploy troops for this war, I kindly remind you that in Gulf War 1, the French were present, and were the one who went the farest (sp?) in the desert. They penetrated further in Irak than any other nation, USA included.

Don't confuse the unwillingness to enter a war that 99% of the population opposes with its inability to do so.

The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).

That precision done, you won't in fact see French troops in Iraq. The idea here is that we did everything to prevent the war, and that means we don't have a duty to go there and fix what the Bush adminstration has fucked up. And I totally agree with that.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[antifoidulus]

Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all,
Um, you do realize that both French and German troops are currently in Afghanistan, and they have been there for quite a while. Even the American commander in Afghanistan said he counts the French troops among the best he has. Last time I checked, large parts of Afghanistan are deserts, and very rough deserts at that.
Maybe you should stop watching so much Bill O'Reilly, and oh I dunno, go learn a fact or two, then come back and we can talk.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[nelsonal]

Doesn't France still have the French foreign leigon? I would think that with several famous deployments to the Sahara they would be ideal troops with experience in both desert, Islamic, and peacekeeping roles.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[bofkentucky]

There's a civil war brewing in the Sudan, let them try their hand at that one since they stood idly by the last time there was a masacre going on in Africa

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard there was something like 11,000 troops in Afghanistan. I would not really call a portion of that a "large number."

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting figures:

540 french troops in afghanistan - .0009% of fr population
9600 american troops in afghanistan - .0032% of us population

per capita, us has almost 4 times as many troops in afghanistan, currently.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[the gnat]

Similarly, I think the odds of a President Kerry suddenly getting tens of thousands of French and German troops into Iraq to be long at best and more likely wishful.

The odds of Kerry getting us into another giant military option because he just fucking feels like it are pretty low, too.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[CSG_SurferDude]

farest (sp?)

Furthest

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[JimFromJersey]

Altrough there is no way that France will deploy troops for this war, I kindly remind you that in Gulf War 1, the French were present, and were the one who went the farest (sp?) in the desert. They penetrated further in Irak than any other nation, USA included.

First, the unit(s) from France we actually French Foreign Legion, not French nationals. Second, they were artillery units which pretty much precludes them from being in front of anything.

Don't confuse the unwillingness to enter a war that 99% of the population opposes with its inability to do so.

Fighting is easy, grinding out a victory logistically is painfully difficult. France has had to turn to the UN for help in the Ivory Coast. I find it unlikely that even if it wanted to it could maintain the levels of troops required for sustained combat operations.

The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).

Combat wins battles, logistics win wars. It also takes a willingness to incur casualties, a willingness to sacrifice. It is my belief that in their heart-of-hearts, the French just are not willing. Could this be a reaction to the death of so many Frenchmen during WWI? Could be.

That precision done, you won't in fact see French troops in Iraq. The idea here is that we did everything to prevent the war, and that means we don't have a duty to go there and fix what the Bush adminstration has fucked up. And I totally agree with that.

France was making too much money off of oil-for-food to kill that cash cow. France also feared (rightly so) that any new government in Iraq would not be held responsible for the previous governments debt. France also decided that this was the perfect time to show itself as a counter-weight against American power and to portray itself as a friend to the muslim world (hey maybe they'll forget the 1,000,000 Algerians killed by France). Too bad it didn't help. By telling some of the smaller, newer EU countries to "shut-up" France simply showed its arrogance, that it wanted this to be the century of France, that it felt that it was time for the Americans to move off center stage and let France take over. For all their hard work in the Muslim world, it made no difference when those two journalists were kidnapped.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Slime-dogg]

I don't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted a draft. How is this flip-flopping?

Flip-flopping is more like voting yes to take action, voting no to increased funding for military equipment, then calling out the president for not providing said equipment. And who did that, pray tell?

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Slime-dogg]

The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).

Funded by Iraqi money, and running on Iraqi oil!

France won't agree to the war in Iraq, because it destroys the lush deal it had with Saddam.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Pluvius]

I don't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted a draft. How is this flip-flopping?

I said that "lowering his expectations" would be flip-flopping. It helps if you read the entire post before you reply.

Flip-flopping is more like voting yes to take action, voting no to increased funding for military equipment, then calling out the president for not providing said equipment. And who did that, pray tell?

I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me who decided against the 9/11 Commission, then decided for it; who decided against the Department of Homeland Security, then decided for it; who decided to allow the UN to do weapon inspections in Iraq, then decided to invade before they were finished; etc.

As for "calling out the President for not providing said equipment," I'd like to remind you that the resolution for increased funding passed. The equipment problem is entirely the fault of the Bush administration.

Oh, and BTW, the only reason Kerry voted against the resolution is that he wanted a version of the bill that included the removal of tax cuts on the rich to pay for it. Since it was clear that the version without the removal of tax cuts was going to pass, he voted against it as a protest.

Rob

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[totatis]

You have a lot of facts wrong, and I'll try, as a Frenchman, to give you more insight, especially in France's internal politics.

First, the unit(s) from France we actually French Foreign Legion, not French nationals. Second, they were artillery units which pretty much precludes them from being in front of anything.

The "Foreign Legion" (Légion étrangère) is first an infantery unit. Of course, it has some artillery, but it is not its primary function.
Now, about the first Gulf war, let me remind you of the French troops engaged :
12000 terrest army men, composed of infantery, artillery, and a big division of light tanks (700 tanks, US had 2000 tanks)
2400 marine men, with cruisers, destroyers, and a carrier
1100 air force men

A lot of the 12000 terrest army men were from the Légion étrangère, but the marine, the air force, and a part of infantry were from the regular army, not the Légion.

You can find a summary of the troops engaged here : (sorry, link in French) http://www.quid.fr/2000/Q030440.htm.

They clearly were not only artillery, and, I repeat, they were the ones that went the furthest (thanks to the guy that told me the spelling :) ) in the desert, penetrating it more than any other nation.

I fail to see how you can conclude that they were only artillery that couldn't be in front. Quite the contrary in fact.

France has had to turn to the UN for help in the Ivory Coast.

Pretty much like the US is currently doing with Irak, where, after deciding they would go alone are now starting to plead for international support ?

Yes, it's a lot easier to blindly affect damage than to logistically win a war. And the USA, with the greastest army in the world, and a military budget higher than the rest of the world combined are also struggling to do it. But France has historically showed that given the same ressources as the US is capable of more efficiency for occupation operations.

Oh, and nobody claimed that France could alone occupy Irak, it doesn't pretend to. Don't deduct that they can't do efficient military operation, the US didn't cheer France's army in Gulf war 1 and in Afghanistan for nothing.

It also takes a willingness to incur casualties, a willingness to sacrifice

Actually, the US army is certainly the least willing to have casualities of all armies. It has a tendency to bomb everything to the ground (including civilians) rather than risk losing a few men. Don't confuse willingness to take combat damage with willingness to engage massive funds in a war seen as unnecessary.

France didn't go to Irak for politic reasons, and certainly not for military reasons.

I find it unlikely that even if it wanted to it could maintain the levels of troops required for sustained combat operations.

It is currently demonstrating the contrary in Afghanistan.

It is my belief that in their heart-of-hearts, the French just are not willing. Could this be a reaction to the death of so many Frenchmen during WWI? Could be.

You have a point here : French don't want to go to war, because they know what war is. France (like most of Europe) has known way too well what a war on its soil means. America doesn't know that as well, and the horror of war are indeed much more present in European's minds than in American's ones.

However, unlike you, I consider this a good thing.

Now, on the part where you clearly show your lack of understanding of French politics :

First, a small point : France was making too much money off of oil-for-food to kill that cash cow.

Please note that about all countries involved in oil-for-food (US included) abused it and took that for a cash cow. This isn't a French particularity (unlike what many Americans o

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Anonymous Coward]

Farthest, dipshit. The 'u' form is for abstract concepts, the 'a' form is for real distances. Dipshit.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Slime-dogg]

Oh, and BTW, the only reason Kerry voted against the resolution is that he wanted a version of the bill that included the removal of tax cuts on the rich to pay for it. Since it was clear that the version without the removal of tax cuts was going to pass, he voted against it as a protest.

Regardless of his reasons, he still voted against it.

Then again, that's an abuse of his position, now isn't it? Instead of voting in line with what his constituents require, he decides to vote along his own personal views, or his party's views. I'm sorry, but a senator has a responsibility to the people that voted him in, and not to the party that helped dupe them into voting for him.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Colazar]

Then again, that's an abuse of his position, now isn't it? Instead of voting in line with what his constituents require, he decides to vote along his own personal views, or his party's views. I'm sorry, but a senator has a responsibility to the people that voted him in, and not to the party that helped dupe them into voting for him.

Not at all. The reason we have a representative democracy is because we don't want to decide everything based on the polls, but because we want someone that we (theoretically) trust to make an informed decision on our behalf. Once we vote someone into office, he *damn well better* do his own thinking. If this means that he acts in a way that the majority of his constituents don't agree with, well then, he'll be voted out of office next time he comes up for election.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Slime-dogg]

Yes. It's a representative democracy, in that he represents the interests of his constituents. Every decision should be up to what he believes is best for his state, not what is best for his party.

Shit, even placing emphasis on the word "representative" proves my point, by the very definition of the word. If Kerry wanted to do polls, he could do so. He could also listen to those in the state that he represents in congress. Unfortunately, he's too busy riding the political donkey in the backyard to represent his people.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Colazar]

It's an old debate. If the politician just does what his constituents want, then he's "pandering" or "just voting according to the polls". If he doesn't than he's "ignoring his constituents".

Calling him our representative means he represents our political power, not that he necessarily represents anything else about us. And that's fine with me. I vote for a candidate based on my opinion of their judgement, because when it comes time for them to vote, they are operating with way more information than I have (and with infinitely more information than the majority of the electorate), so I would be disappointed if they only operate on that lower level of understanding. I expect my elected officials to vote their conscience, not their opinion of what I might want them to do. (In practice, they often vote neither of these things, but based on lobbying and campaign contributions, but that's a different problem.) And I expect them to do what is "best," not "best for their constituents," or "best for their party." Perhaps that's too much to expect, but there it is.

BTW, I know that you are talking about Kerry, but I'm not. I haven't a clue how well his positions and votes match up with the opinions of people in MA, or how satisfied they are with him. I'm talking about the general principle.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[CSG_SurferDude]

Google says both are correct.

But I shouldn't be replying to trolls anyways. ;-)

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[beggarstune]

Yes, it is amazing to watch the leap of logic required to believe that Kerry is going to convince nations (with their own self-interest) to send their troops into the mess that is currently Iraq just so the US can lower its percentage of the casualties.

Bush has a history of making pre-emptive attacks with limited and/or fabricated evidence without UN approval. A vote for Kerry makes the risk of that happening again lower, IMO.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[JimFromJersey]

Interesting points. However, I never said it (the Iraq war) was a good thing and the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program, US companies were barred from buying Iraqi oil.

Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping ... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.

I also understand the concept of realpolitik in both the domestic and foreign policy sense. However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.

All that being said, in no way should anything that I have said be taken to mean I support this war. I personally feel that Iraq should not have been discussed until Afghanistan was finished. I am a firm believer in consolidating gains before gambling more. Not that I had an issue with removing Saddam, the US bears a fair share of the repsonsibility for keeping him in power and therfore bears a fair share of the responsibility for removing him. With the end of the coldwar, those we supported for idealogical reasons should be removed for ethical reasons.

Actually I get quite a bit from Reuters, less so from BBC because I find their website is not "quick news reading" friendly. No, I don't watch Fox and generally only look at their web news to see their counter-spin.

Bitter? No, just a little sad.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[totatis]

the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program

My mistake, that was a typo in my post, I meant UK, not US. I've found this and this link that provide more information on the oil for food scandal.
What I find shocking is the apparent concensus here (not from you from what I can see) that only France abused the program. There were 250 companies of 61 countries involved in this program, and it looks like the majority did abuse it at one point or another. And it looks like countries abusing it were for or against the war, without much distinction. Russia, France, UK, Italia... are supposed to have abused it.
I guess that we will have to wait for the investigations to see more clearly into these apparent abuses. For the moment, nothing is sure, and since this topic is hottly politics, we must be wary of all the accusations and declaration of innocence, since it's likely that all parties are more or less lying (and I don't trust Chalabi for giving fair informations).

So, it looks like major corruption occured (but note that the program was under supervision of US, so we will have to wait to see what happened really). What looks sure is that abusers were either for or against the war, so accusing the anti-war countries of being anti-war just for this program looks misguided.

Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping ... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.
Actually, Muslims do back the liberation of the French reporters. Only the group (a very scarse number of muslims) that did the kidnapping is to blame, not all muslims. Other radical groups have even publicaly proposed their help to free the reporters. On this particular point, there is absolutly no doubt that if you're kidnapped in Iraq, it's better to be French than American.

However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
This is very true, but, in my opinion, France did the right thing, but that's only my opinion. What is sure is that the reasons given by Bush's administration (WMD and link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda) are blatently false. Even Rumsfield acknowleged that neither existed.
So, I think that France was right and the US was wrong.

Bitter? No, just a little sad.
I should have make the precision that I wasn't specifically speaking of you when I spoke about bitterness. That is the sentiment I have about people here bashing the French.

Last, but not least, I'm tired of all the French bashing I see here, and i'm glad you and I can have a pleasant and intelligent discussion of this. That is conforting, and I hope some of the worst war supporter and "anyone not supporting the war is a coward and corrupt bastard" crowd on Slashdot will take a lesson from our discussion. Too many people (but again, not you) have listenned too much to Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stupidity.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Matrix272]

It's an old debate. If the politician just does what his constituents want, then he's "pandering" or "just voting according to the polls". If he doesn't than he's "ignoring his constituents".

If you want to get technical about it, Senators should be doing neither. They should be voting for what the state government wants, and what would be in the best interests of the state government, not what the people want. The whole purpose for having a Senate was to represent the states, not the people (that's why it's not called the "House of Representatives"). Of course that all changed when they pushed through the 17th Amendment, the 2nd nail in the coffin for the United States (the 1st was the 16th Amendment).

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[JimFromJersey]

It is nice to have a decent conversation for a change. Not only does it now appear that Saddam posed zero threat, it seems that he had been trying to open a low-level dialog with the US in the 90's and that his advisors told him to make a condolence speech after 9/11 and he decided not too. All that money spent and all those people killed for nothing. We could have gotten him on to rejoin the community of nations. Heck, we got Libya to come in from the cold. He was still terrified of Iran. It would not have been that difficult to convince him that his best chance for long-term survival was with the west, not against it. Now there are those who would call that appeasement. I disagree, this is not Chamberlin giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. This is someone looking to put the past behind them. Hopefully the next U.S. administration learns a lesson from all this and makes an effort to a)mend fences and b)try to think long term. It is easy to give in to fantasies of isolationism, but they are just that fantasies. It would be nice to be able to spend Christams in Paris at some point in time in the future without getting constantly harrased (well, for something other then not speaking French, that I expect). Anyways, nice chatting with you.

Will MTV still fearmonger like before?

[aggiefalcon01]

One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.

Re:Will MTV still fearmonger like before?

[bmetzler]

One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.

MTV is trying to get young people to vote REPUBLICAN??? Woah, I never knew...

-Brent

Re:Will MTV still fearmonger like before?

[mrbrown1602]

MTV is inheritently Democrat. Did you happen to watch their "war coverage" when the liberation of Iraq was taking place? They were broadcasting this crap 24 hours a day about how basically no matter what, Bush is an evil warmonger who wants to destroy the world.

And MTV did it again - by insinuating that the Republicans are bringing back the draft. They're taking advantage of an urban legend email that has been forwarded to people like me. But the fact of the matter is, the draft isn't coming back under a Bush administration... although I can't vouch for Kerry, since he wants to magically increase troop numbers by 40,000 and all...

Re: MTV sure as hell fell for it

[aggiefalcon01]

MTV sure as hell fell for it: proof

That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[foniksonik]

During tonight's debate, John Edwards stated that John Kerry and He would "raise the active-duty forces by 40,000" hmmm that sounds like it might involve some sort of draft... what other incentive can they offer to entice more active duty forces during a war time?

Re:That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[SPY_jmr1]

How about the other military standby: Free "exotic" sex!

Re:That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the soldiers in Iraq actually getting exotic sex? I can't imagine that happening much there.

Re:That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, wherever there are soldiers a long way away from home there are hookers more than willing to help out with that. It's just how things work, don't be naive -- the situation is unlike to be any different in Iraq.

Re:That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[spitzak]

Huh? 40,000 is a pretty small increase. No draft needed for that.

Re:That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[jgardn]

Except, and this is the truth, prostitution is a very serious crime in the military penal system. if you get caught, you serve time. I know you've seen the movies of Korea and Vietnam, but the truth is it wasn't as large scale as they allege. Nowadays, they are much stricter. It simply doesn't happen, and when it does, soldiers rat on each other. They get congratulations from their sergeants and lietenants when they do.

I think one guy summed it up best over there. He said something like, "When I'm pinned down, I want to make sure that my buddy's only thought is on my life and how to get me out safely. If he is thinking about something else, or distracted in any way, that puts my life in danger. That's why we keep them out of the bars and away from the whores. If he gets the itch or his wang starts to feel the effects, then I might lose my life. It's my duty to protect him and his duty to protect me."

They are also very strict about looting and other seemingly harmless activities. Soldiers aren't allowed to take anything except ammo and weapons from the dead in Iraq.

I know this for a fact. One of my friends is pounding sand in Fallujah.

Idiot moderator

[Awptimus Prime]

What about my post was a troll? I give my honest opinion on the draft, albeit not a well-written novel, and get modded as a troll.

How about instead of going through threads you are uninterested in and modding people down, you leave them alone so someone else can give their input on the subject?

Forgive me for contributing to the forums. I'll be sure to refrain in the future.

Re:Idiot moderator

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very common. Usually conservatives get modded down by liberals, but now I have seen conservatives do the same. Sucks your karma right out. Be careful!

Re:Idiot moderator

[Grym]

No, it isn't fair.

But neither is this, this, or this.

All I can say is welcome to the politics section of Slashdot. Be prepared to burn some karma and have your posts modded into oblivion by mods who don't agree.

Consider yourself lucky, though. At least your views are liberal, which explains why this is only the first time it's happened to you. Us moderates-conservatives/conservatives have almost completely given up the fight here on slashdot.

-Grym

Read the bill.

[flamingweasel]

This bill was never meant to go to a vote, nor did its author expect it to go anywhere. If you RTFB, you'll see it's 2 years of mandatory service for all. This was a bill to make a political point, that all of these congressman would never send their sons and daughters off to die for this war, but would happily send all the poor folks who serve as our military off to die in the desert.

This wasn't Machiavellian, it was a statement. Obviously lost on almost everyone.

Re:Read the bill.

[Kymermosst]

... but would happily send all the poor folks who serve as our military off to die in the desert.

I was in the Army, and I never considered myself "poor" before, during, or after my service, and I know plenty of other current soldiers who do not feel poor now.

Someone I know just volunteered to go back. I've thought about it, but a disability prevents me from being useful in my former position.

Stop insulting us.

Re:Read the bill.

[dtfinch]

I was in the Army, and I never considered myself "poor" before, during, or after my service

The goal of the bill was to ensure that we would never go to war unless it was absolutely, positively a good idea.

And on average, the poor are more likely to join the army, partly out of need, and close friends and relatives of voting members of congress and the wealthy are the least likely to wind up on the front lines during a war.

Re:Read the bill.

[dbrutus]

Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?

Re:Read the bill.

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have a link for that?

Re:Read the bill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, post the some basis behind that or I'll select the "Troll" option. :-)

Re:Read the bill.

[Politburo]

I never considered myself "poor"

What you think doesn't matter. "Poor" and "rich" have concrete definitions. Did you know that 20% of the population believes they are in the top 3% of income earners? Sad.

Re:Read the bill.

[tyen]

This is for all the responding posts to the parent asking for corroboration. 10 minutes of Googling later, here (requires registration) are some related links.

No one has been able to fully enumerate the five Congressional members and their offspring who are serving in Iraq. However, some facts pointed out in this discussion:

1. Moore never asserted in his movie that the children of US Congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq. See the movie transcript to verify from primary source. Instead, he asked the people that authorized the Iraq war (members of Congress) if they would send thier kids to Iraq.
2. Equally factual is that in the United States, you can only enlist in the armed forces when you are of the age of majority. Meaning your parents (the Congressmen Moore was posing his question to) cannot do what he posits. They can no more send their children to Iraq than violate some fundamental precepts of the Constitution.
3. Quote: Senators and Congressmen (and Pentagon workers, and the President himself) ARE on the front lines of this war, and have been since its opening salvo. They don't need their children to be put in harm's way to show their bravery and resolve. They need only show up for work. If you don't think Washington, D.C. is a target, you haven't been listening to Osama.
4. The Congressional members who are known to have children serving in the Enduring Freedom theatre of operations or are expected to be there soon are: Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, son Brooks Johnson, 31, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division; Rep. John Kline, R-MN, son, Dan Kline who is slotted for shipping out.
5. For anyone who still wants to play the statistics game and still assert that Congress members' families are under-represented, fine. Let's see where the numbers take us. Quote: The correct comparison would be to compare the total number of parents in the US with children of military age over the total number of troops and then the same comparison in the Congress - number of Reps with children of military age vs. number serving...assume that all people from the age of 40 to 79 have children of military age and likewise all Congressional Reps. - the errors are likely to be in the same direction (overstated in both cases) and so even out. There are around 130 million in the 40 to 79 age group. So the rate of service is around 1 per thousand potential parents. Applying this to Congress, you'd expect less than 1 child in Iraq. Instead, we can count one for certain, possibly another four depending upon your sources. So the representation, in known terms from primary sources, is at least the enlistment rate of the general population.
6. This is just immediate family members. Including first relations, representation of Congress members' families is likely to go much, much higher. If you are a Moore fan, would you care to chase down primary sources on that, which will only widen the gap further, o

Re:Read the bill.

[Kymermosst]

What you think doesn't matter.

I beg to differ. What someone *thinks* about their situation and what their actions are as a result of that thinking is what makes someone "poor."

Back when I made only $8,000 in one year (immediately after leaving the Army), I still wasn't "poor" by any definition that should matter. I had a place to live, a job that had flexible hours, friends, and enough money to have a little fun.

What I didn't have was... cable TV, High-speed internet, an expensive car, expensive meals, a giant aparment, or a lot of stuff. I lived within my means and was perfectly happy.

Now, I could have made other choices and had a lot of nice stuff, or f***ed around and had a couple kids or whatnot. But I didn't make those choices, and was able to live on a small income.

What the definition of "poor" should be is when you are unable to live within your community with enough food, shelter, and other necessary things based on a minimum income necessary to sustain that without buying frivolous shit like cable TV.

For an example of some of the "poor" I know: I know an unmarried couple with a child who are receiving government assistance for food and rent payments. Why is it that they have a 56" HDTV, cable TV, a new truck, and other nice things that they make payments on every month, but taxpayers are buying their food and paying their rent? And don't accuse me of making this up, one of these people is a childhood friend of my wife.

I'll give another, personal, embarrassing story about someone who is "poor." I've got some relatives (aunt and uncle) who have been "poor" all of their lives, living in the Los Angeles area, receiving gov't assistance, raising my drug dealing cousins, rented all of their lives in low-income neighborhoods. Three times they have received inheritances in the tens of thousands of dollars. Rather than choose to improve their situation the first two times, they squandered the money on trips across the country, bought a little impractical and expensive sports car, but continued to rent their living space.

The third, rather large, inheritance, they finally decided to buy a house and improve their situation. They bought a house (outright, with cash) close to remaining living family (near my parents), and between that and moving costs managed to spend all of the money on something that could have improved their situation. Both of them got jobs.

In less than sixty days, they decided that they "missed their friends" (without attempting to make new ones) and they packed up and moved back to Los Angeles. They sold the house they had bought and owned outright at a loss, and between that and further moving costs and first+last+deposit on a new house to rent, have managed to lose all of the money. But hey, they've got a several-year old expensive sports car that they can barely afford the insurance on.

So, after inheriting hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are right back where they started: "poor." Somehow, I have a really hard time feeling sorry for these "poor" (even though they are my relatives) and those like them. Nobody who makes choices like that should be entitled to any form of government assistance whatsoever. But they will, once they can show the next year's tax forms where they have minimum wage incomes and no inheritance money.

Re:Read the bill.

[Politburo]

You seem to have equated poor with stupid in your mind.. at least based on your anecdotes. (Aside: Please don't use anecdotes as argument.) There are smart poor people (yourself at one time), and there are stupid rich people. How people spend their money does not make them poor or rich, unless they spend themselves into the poorhouse. How much money they have does. As for government assistance.. while there are and always will be problems in the administration of entitlement programs, that does not mean that those who deserve assistance should be denied. That you know people who are gaming the system doesn't change the fact that there are many people who aren't gaming the system and are barely scraping by even with government assistance.

Somehow, I have a really hard time feeling sorry for these "poor" (even though they are my relatives) and those like them.

So do I. It doesn't change the fact that they simply don't have any money.

Not good even as a protest move

[chitownIrish]

Rangel introduced this measure under the idea that if a draft were reinstated, the chickenhawks would tone down their rhetoric when it might mean that their kids would be the ones fighting.

The problem with this is twofold. First, the powerful will find a way to keep their kids out of harm's way no matter what laws are passed (even if the National Guard is no longer a safe haven).

Second, even if it were to soften the stance of some hawks, it would likely not do so until after a lot of kids (like my 17 year old son) get their asses shot off.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Breakfast Pants]

Thats the idea. There's already a gonna be a 17 year old getting his ass shot anyway. Why not yours? If there was the possibility that it might be yours getting shot perhaps you might be a little more reluctant to go to war. (I assume from your post you are rich enough that your son would never have to consider joining the military to for instance raise a child).

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[jgardn]

The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer). I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous. If he lost his life defending our country and whatever country he was fighting in, I'll be sad, but I'll know that he gave his life in serving others.

That's something you forget about us "chickenhawks". A lot of us are Christians, and we know that God was willing to lay down the life of his own Son to save others, so we have to do the same with our children, let them walk the walk that we can't walk due to our age.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Baron_Yam]

I can't support your reasoning, but I certainly would like to believe I'd act the same way.

I wouldn't want my son to die because a cult leader was cruicified 2000 years ago. On the other hand, I do believe that if you're unwilling to defend a society whose values you agree with, and whose values provide you with a fairly safe environment, you are unworthy of that society's support.

In other words, if you're not willing to take up arms to protect your country, get out. I just wish the draft started at around 25 so there would be a hope that the draftees understood the issues and could decide for themselves whether to serve or dodge.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[totatis]

If he lost his life defending our country

And what if he lost his life in a stupid war that was not engaged to defend your country ? Look at Vietnam, your country didn't engage there to defend itself, yet a lot of young men died. I'm sure you would not be so eager to have your child die in such a conflict.

And, to this point, the Bush administration has showed that it is very capable of declaring a war without good reasons. If the only war the US fought were about self-defense, the world would be much nicer, and terrorist wouldn't find it so easy to recruit new kamikazes willing to sacrifice to kill Americans.

And that, in my eyes, is the greatest danger of the Bush administration (and I say administration, since I believe more every day that Bush the man is just a stupid puppet in the hands of corrupt and dangerous men).

I don't know if it was the purpose of this bill, but, indeed, countries with draftees in their army tend to engage way much less in armed conflicts, since it automatically triggers a social movement of parents not willing to see their child die. That was even the reason some people opposed the end of draft in some European countries.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[chitownIrish]

The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer).

Well, that contradicts the definition of 'Chickenhawk'. A chickenhawk is one who advocates aggressive military action, but is not willing to serve (or have their children serve) in the military. So I would suggest that when you saying "us Chickenhawks" is not compatible with your views on military service - views that I share with you.

I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous.

I agree with you completely - I never served in the military, but almost everyone from my parent's generation did. My father immigrated here in 1947 and served in the Army twice - including a tour in Korea - before he was granted citizenship. I have the utmost respect for those who choose to serve in the military.

The problem is that I do not trust Bush to use the military wisely or with restraint. And in this war that has us so divided, one of the most galling things is that Bush, Cheney, et al. are men who avoided service in Vietnam through various means, and now have started their own misguided war. They did not walk the walk when they were of age and others were called. Now they call on others to walk the walk for them.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[darkwing_bmf]

And, to this point, the Bush administration has showed that it is very capable of declaring a war without good reasons. If the only war the US fought were about self-defense, the world would be much nicer, and terrorist wouldn't find it so easy to recruit new kamikazes willing to sacrifice to kill Americans.

Bush before 9/11 hadn't declared war on anyone but the terrorists still attacked us. While it might be nice to think that the only cause of terrorism is the US going to war, that is just not supported by events.

I don't know if it was the purpose of this bill, but, indeed, countries with draftees in their army tend to engage way much less in armed conflicts

The Russians and Israelis would probably disagree with you.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the way "chickenhack" gets thrown around on slashdot, though.

Here it's just anyone who hasn't served.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Anonymous Coward]

I have news for you. Flying jet fighters... old at the time and probably obsolete... is VERY dangerous. Bush was trying very hard to get enough flight hours to go fight in Vietnam. At least twice folks were called up from guard units to fly fighters in vietnam when George W. Bush volunteered to go with those called for combat. Yes Dan Rather would rather not tell you. He volunteered TWICE for combat. He didn't have enough hours in the cockpit. George W. Bush didn't walk the walk, he freaking FLEW the walk. Kerry volunteered for duty that he was farly sure wouldn't involve combat after his sixth deferment was declined... to avoid the draft. His second tour he volunteered for the swifts, when they were not in the country but off the coast, not in combat. It was only after he volunteered that they changed the mission of the swift boats to go into combat... then three bloodless Purple Hearts and out for Kerry. Talk about highlighting the difference between 'Intelligent' and 'Wise'.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[totatis]

Bush before 9/11 hadn't declared war on anyone but the terrorists still attacked us. While it might be nice to think that the only cause of terrorism is the US going to war, that is just not supported by events.

First, I didn't say that it was the only cause. There are others. Second, Bush didn't declare war before 9/11, but the US did. In fact the US is the country that fought the most war since WW2. And that has helped terrorist to recruit.

The US has an history of acting upon other nations, and if is not done properly and with great care (which has too oftern be not the case), it does help terrorists to recruit. And you can't win against terrorism if you help them recruit.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bush before 9/11 hadn't declared war on anyone but the terrorists still attacked us.

And then we attacked someone else that had nothing to do with it. Why don't we attack Mexico while we're at it? I hear some shady figures live there.

Re:Not good even as a protest move

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bush was trying very hard to get enough flight hours to go fight in Vietnam.

Bullshit. He didn't score high enough on his tests to become a pilot, yet they made him one because he was Bush. He did less than the absolute minimum needed to defend the Texas air space from Mexico. He was given a penalty for poor attendance. He asked for a transfer to a non-flying unit! How can you possibly say that?

>George W. Bush volunteered to go with those called for combat.

Bull-fucking-shit. Name one witness.

I do know that just after mandatory drug testing was implemented in the National Guard, George W refused to take his flight physical (disobeying a direct order) and was grounded, but no inquiry took place because he was Bush. It's best for the nation that he didn't go to vietnam anyway. No one wanted to have to depend on someone so irresponsible.

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

The problem with this argument

[wrinkledshirt]

The problem with your argument (and I totally agree with you, in theory) is that it's easy for the privileged to avoid getting drafted. You only have to look at the same chickenhawks in this administration who are pushing the ongoing war on terrorism that managed to avoid any real military service of their own back when they had a draft.

Re:The problem with this argument

[Awptimus Prime]

Yeah, the only way I could fully support it would be to do away with any and all college or income excemptions.

I would assume this would be done since most kids go on to college nowadays. I could see that number rise to nearly 100% if they could dodge the draft by going back to school, this being because it is very easy for anyone to finance a college education if they want it.

Even if we just drafted the bottom of society, the outcry would be so outrageous that our government would have no choice but to back off.

Here you can have a mod up even though I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the troll mod against you and it definitely was unfair. I am fairly conservative, and I disagreed entirely with the premise of your posting, but you gave it honestly and sincerely, and it didn't merit being modded down.

Obvious outcome = Worthless vote

[infonography]

The election is under a month away. can anyone spell forgone conclussion?

Yes that was intentional.

Money, for one...

[ImaLamer]

Yes, he did say that last night... in a sense:

We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families -- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

He also pointed out:

They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

and this:

He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also. One of the major problems is not getting new troops, it's keeping the ones that are there.

It's not fair that these men and women make almost no money when they are fighting a war to liberate oil fields. They should get some sort of profit sharing, right?

Re:Money, for one...

[bmetzler]

Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also.

If we're lying to the troops so much then why do 80% of the troops support President Bush?

-Brent

Re:Money, for one...

[ImaLamer]

We are talking about the same brainwashed military right?

Re:Money, for one...

[foniksonik]

"It's not fair that these men and women make almost no money when they are fighting a war to liberate oil fields. They should get some sort of profit sharing, right?"

You know that box on your taxes where you can donate money to a charitable cause... you should use it.

Military men and women get salary plus danger pay plus full health insurance, life insurance, housing stipends and travel expenses paid plus vacation pay, sick pay and family leave pay.

My older brother just left the army... he didn't know how good he had it until he got out... his pay has been cut by a third now that he's in the private sector and no housing allowance, half as much health coverage... etc, etc.

No he didn't leave because he disagreed with anything.. he had another child and wanted to spend more time with his two kids and his wife.

Military pay is just fine. If someone in the military wants to waste all their money on booze and partying that's their problem. Reality is they get paid plenty and the benefits more than make up for anything else you might complain about.

I could explain why the rest of Mr. Edward's and your own position are false but it would be a waste of time seeing as how you have the evidence you need to see how things work in the real world... not some fantasy land where money grows on trees but ohoh oh we can't take it cause it would endanger the environment....

The military will grow 60% before there is a draft

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been hearing these politicaly motivated stories about the draft for a long time and have been amazed that people fall for them.

First is the fact that it is so easy these days to find out who is actually backing that sort of proposal. It has always been clear that it was the Democrats, and that there was little support for it from anybody.

Second is the fact that the all-volunteer military has normally been much larger than it is today. It was only the end of the Cold War and an attempt to get a peace dividend that the armed forces were really cut back. I think that the Army is only about 2/3 the size it was in the 80s. It is likely that the size of the military could be significantly increased without a draft.

Then there is this tidbit:

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Oct. 1, 2004) -- For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command hit its fiscal year active-duty and Reserve recruiting goals.

As of Sept. 27, the command brought in 77,587 active Army recruits against a Department of the Army mission of 77,000, and 21,278 Reserve recruits against a 21,000 requirement.

I expect that there are some people who will leave service due to the war, but many more are going to be more likely to stay. Most soldiers believe in what they are doing. The prospect of going into combat tends to cut through the BS that piles up during peacetime.

Hillary? Not a chance

[spitzak]

I've always said that "Hillary running for president" is a wet dream by Republicans, it's exactly the same as this draft thing: Republicans restarting the draft is a wet dream for Democrats.

Neither is going to happen. Get out of your fantasy land.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

It's not a wet dream for anybody because it would force people to realize how horrible the war really is. Once your child is forced to fight in a war that you are beginning to see no reason for, you'll see how terrible the whole thing really is.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[CptNerd]

Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience. Cheney won't run, Schwartzenegger can't run, Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.

Hillary also has the "pleasant" memories of the first Clinton term in her favor, and what "progressive" wouldn't vote for the first woman candidate for President? (conveniently forgetting all the others through the years).

No, the '08 election is Hillary's to lose.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[finkployd]

Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.

The beauty of it is that he won't need the conservative base to be voting for him, they will be to busy voting against Hillary to notice who they are voting for. She will not win, and in no small part to her abrasive and "cold" attitude. Carville will never be president for the same reason (and Dole lost big on this too).

The DNC completely missed this point when they put Kerry up instead of someone like Clark. The hard core left will vote for whoever they put up against Bush, because they want him out of office more than anything. It is the middle ground they forgot (and need). It is too easy to characterize (and not without good reason) Kerry as a way-left, nutball liberal, which turns off moderates.

Also keep in mind that moderate does not mean "ambilavant" or "soft on issues", it usually means that someone has several strongly held views from both sides of the spectrum, and has to almost tally them up and weight them to see which candidate supports the bulk of their beliefs about how the country should be managed.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[CptNerd]

The beauty of it is that he won't need the conservative base to be voting for him, they will be to busy voting against Hillary to notice who they are voting for. She will not win, and in no small part to her abrasive and "cold" attitude. Carville will never be president for the same reason (and Dole lost big on this too).

Don't mistake the conservative vote as being very cohesive. The Republicans are on the outs with a big chunk of conservatives, and they aren't likely to vote "against" someone, they're more likely to just "abstain." If voting against a candidate worked, then Clinton wouldn't have had a second term.

The average voter given a choice during relatively good times will pick the incumbent, and for the most part will vote sentiment rather than ideas when the incumbent leaves. GWB owes a lot of his appeal to his father, who owed a lot to Reagan. Gore had a lot of appeal from his association with Bill Clinton, and if he'd had more political instinct, he'd be in the White House now.

Hillary will also have the benefit of a whole lot of new voters in '08 who were kids when she was First Lady, and new voters especially in college tend to vote liberal and Democratic. They will subconsciously associate her with their pleasant childhood memories, too.

I've been following politics since I first voted for President in '76, and I've learned by observation and talking to people that don't live, eat, and breathe politics. It may seem irrational, and your arguments against a Hillary Clinton Presidency seem sound, but believe me, you'd better not bet against her! She'll be able to surmount a lot of the negatives, especially if she can make it look like the Republicans are "harrassing" and "browbeating" her.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[The Iconoclast]

The DNC completely missed this point when they put Kerry up instead of someone like Clark. The hard core left will vote for whoever they put up against Bush, because they want him out of office more than anything. It is the middle ground they forgot (and need). It is too easy to characterize (and not without good reason) Kerry as a way-left, nutball liberal, which turns off moderates. Actually, Clark was to the left of a great majority of the Primary candidates. All except for maybe Kusnich. Hell, even Michael Moore (voted most likely to be burned in effigy by republicans) said Clark was more liberal than Dean.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[spitzak]

I think you missed my point. Whether you are for or against the war, I think you could agree that war opponents whould feel that starting the draft would be the greatest thing possible that could happen to help turn people against the war. Thus the Republicans doing it is a dream situation for their opponents. It is a fantasy where the enemy consciously does the worst thing possible for their cause and it WILL NOT HAPPEN. I think the Republicans would prefer to give up on Iraq, say it was a mistake, and evacuate, than to start a draft. The draft is that unlikely.

I also feel that "Hillary running" is a similar dream by Republicans. They know things may be very bad for them in 2008 and they thus escape into just as much of a fantasy, where they imagine the Democrats picking the worst possible candidate (in terms of chances of winning) so they can believe they could win.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[spitzak]

I think you way overestimate how many "progressive" Democrat voters there are. There is a huge block that would be turned off by Hillary running, much much larger. An awful lot of it is sexist, of course, but that does not mean the reasons can be ignored.

I actually suspect you know this. You are doing exactly what I am saying, you want a dream situation where the Republicans would win easily in 2008. This dream becomes so powerful that you start making up totally insane Democratic strategies so that you can believe it will happen.

As I said before this is exactly like the draft. With the draft the Democrats have this dream way of making the Republicans plummet in popular opinion, where the Republicans conciously do the stupidest thing possible for their cause. They will come up with elaborate illogical scenarios where the Republicans will approve a draft. That won't happen any more than Hillary running. If things went absolutly terrible in Iraq the Republicans have several other options: they can turn it back into a shooting war, they still have many troops (hundreds of thousands) they could add, they could even be much more violent and bomb despite it killing many civilians, or they could say "hey the liberals were right" and withdraw and let a horrible civil war happen there. All of these options, bad as they are, are preferrable to starting the draft.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[CptNerd]

You are doing exactly what I am saying, you want a dream situation where the Republicans would win easily in 2008. This dream becomes so powerful that you start making up totally insane Democratic strategies so that you can believe it will happen.

You mistake apprehension for approval! :-)

No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.

Effectively, I don't have a dog in this fight! :-(

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

To say "We made a mistake in Iraq.." would be worse than the draft. Because Iraq, for some reason that I still cannot figure out, is the big deal for the republicans. If they say "We were wrong, there are no WMD and Saddam wasn't a threat to the US or her few allies left," that wouldn't be forgotten for at least 40 years.

The Republicans need to finish the job in Iraq to stay in control, if they fail they'll be frelled.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[moofdaddy]

No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than the Democrats, at least for the past 20 years or so. But, I don't see any Republican or Democratic candidate (with any credibility or electablility) that holds my conservative fiscal views. Since I know no one will represent me, I can look at "both sides" with an equally jaundiced eye.

Just because there isn't anyone out there now, doesn't mean one rise up over the next 3 years. The repulican party has a lot of stars waiting in the wings (as does the democratic party for that matter) to be trotted out almost as soon as this election is over.

Expect within a couple of months after the election to see the republicans starting to put forward their nominees for '08. They have plenty of time to build up all sorts of name recognition. Dubya came out of nowhere. All of a sudden he just rose up and everyone was touting him as the next big thing.

Looking towards '08 right now start thinking Judd Gregg, think Rick Santorum (if he were elected by the way I would flee to Canada), think Frist perhapse and don't forget about what has been kicked around a lot, Jeb Bush (who is actually the better of the bush brothers). Don't think for a second that just because there are no major republican stars shinning at the moment that they won't have someone of stature to run against Hillary. Worst case scenerio they can always drag out Mcain, who may not be their favorite person in the world, but would sure as hell give any democratic canidate a run for their money.

On that note there are plenty of potential contenders against Hillary too. The most obvious being Edwards, but also you've got Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Joseph Biden, Russ Feingold, Bob Kerry (that'd be pretty funny, Jeb Bush v. Bob Kerry), and Ed Rendell.

If Bush wins on Nov. 2nd I think it is way too early as to start making predications for '08. It should be a very interesting couple of years.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[spitzak]

Though saying "we made a mistake in Iraq" would be very bad for the Repblicans and it is extremely unlikely they would do it, I feel that if it came down to exactly two choices of saying they were wrong or starting the draft, they would say they are wrong.

Now in reality it's a lot more complex and it will never get to just those two choices, they will always have something more preferrable to choose (ie. they could claim they won in Iraq and then pull out, probably better than saying they were wrong and the same result). I don't think there is any way to prove which of these two choices they consider worse, as they won't do either one of them. I just feel that they are VERY much against starting the draft, and that Democrats would be more realistic saying "Republicans will announce they are wrong next year" than saying "Republicans will start the draft next year".

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[Matrix272]

Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience.

I'd put Condoleeza Rice up against Hillary any day of the week. A few months ago, when there was a question about whether Cheney would be Bush's VP again, I was pulling for Rice to be put in the VP spot. It would probably bring in some women voters now, and set her up for the Presidential ticket in 2008. Can you imagine the fallout from the first black AND the first woman President?

Don't be silly

[jgardn]

On Germany, where are the dangers? Why do we need to keep masses of tanks and airplanes and infantry in the middle of one of the most peaceful areas of the world? Why not bring those people home, or better yet, prepare them for action in places where they are really needed.

On Korea, South Korea has 20 times the economy of North Korea. Wars aren't fought with lives nowadays. Wars are all about who can outspend and outproduce their opponent. That means that South Korea can bring to bear on North Korea an army 20 times the strength of North Korea without help. Of course, South Korea has very strong allies in the region, despite the US. And the US is keeping the hardware there to make sure that an artillery strike on Seoul isn't an option. (Hint: If Seoul gets bombarded, Pyongyang sees mushroom clouds. That's why we keep several B-52 bombers and submarines in the area.)

Moving the infantry, artillery, and tanks and aircraft out of that area is a smart move. Most of it needs to be retired and retrofitted anyway.

The US has proven to be a far more mobile force than previously imagined. We don't need to mass troops in a stalemate position. We need to bring them back from the frontlines so that they can deploy to the most active areas instantaneously, and still have the reserves to fill in the holes that naturally arise.

Re:Don't be silly

[torpor]

okay, i'll bite ... whats the difference between "a front line" and "most active area"?

Re:Don't be silly

[Zeriel]

A front line is where the main bodies of the opposing forces have met. This is not necessarily a terribly active conflict--by any reasonable military standards, the DMZ in Korea is a front line, given that shots are fired across it on a semi-regular basis.

The most active area is whereever the most destruction is going on, whether that's the front lines of the ground war, or the front lines of the air war, or the place way back behind the lines where two or three special ops companies are taking an important target.

"Liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning.

[Futurepower(R)]

"... especially here on /. (which is quite liberal when I've very conservative)."

The words "liberal" and "conservative" have no precise meaning, and should not be used in a logical discussion.

Supposedly, most Republicans are "conservative". But that makes no sense whatsoever. When Reagan was president, the U.S. government became by far the biggest debtor the world had ever seen. Then the "liberal" Democrat president Clinton reduced the debt enormously. Now the "conservative" Bush is borrowing money and surpassing even Reagan.

Republicans are "conservative" only in the sense that they "conserve" and "preserve" the gap between the rich and poor by borrowing money that somehow reaches the hands of the rich.

--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."

Re:"Liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning.

[Matrix272]

The words "liberal" and "conservative" have no precise meaning, and should not be used in a logical discussion.

Historically, being "liberal" means that you support personal freedoms, like abortion and drugs, while being "conservative" means that you support economic freedoms, like lower taxes and not welfare / social security. If you don't support either personal or economic freedom, you're an authoritarian or totalitarian. If you support both personal and economic freedom, then you're a libertarian (or in extreme cases, anarchist). I like my freedoms, so I'm Libertarian, which makes me both liberal and conservative. Since economic freedom impacts me more directly, and more consistently, than the freedom to have an abortion, or the freedom to be gay, I identify more with Republicans (conservatives) than I do with Democrats (liberals). I hope that clears things up for you.

Pardon me

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 435 members of the House. only 404 of them voted. Where were the other 31 drunken sailors?

Re:Pardon me

[pyro101]

This is an election year

Current Odds of draft2010 33%

[randall_burns]

Check out ideosphere.

These are market based odds.

Get your facts straight!

[ZosX]

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?

Rob

This is a good point. If "the Democrats" were behind this bill, they would have voted along the party lines, but this was not the case, only one person voted for the bill. Please do not make broad statements with little to no evidence to back them up, or did you take the Bush school of politics? One person voting for a bill does not equal a Democratic ploy.

Re:Get your facts straight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is the Kerry campaign claiming Bush will reinstate the draft?

Re:Get your facts straight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Check and mate.

What's more equitable than choice?

[Dr. Bent]

The all of the U.S. armed forces are strictly volunteer only. When you choose to join the military you also choose to accept the risk that you might actually have to use all the training and equipment at your disposal and actually go to war.

Nothing could be more equitable. Instutiting a draft will not improve this system. In fact, if Vietnam is any example, a draft would unfairly pull in working class people because they're less likely to be able to get exceptions because of college or a cushy tour in National Guard.

This bill was Democrat party politicing, plain and simple. It has no real value and was never intended to be passed.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[b-baggins]

---
cushy tour in National Guard.
---

Thank you for spitting in the face of all the National Guardsmen now currently serving in Iraq.

Jackass.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[Dr. Bent]

I was making a reference to Bush Jr.'s tour in the Texas National Guard where he did an excellent job of keeping the North Vietnameese out of Austin.

I thought that was obvious, and I'm sorry for any confusion. I guess not everyone who reads the political posts on slashdot is as politicaly minded as I.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[b-baggins]

Except that it looks like Bush actually volunteered for duty in Viet Nam when he was in the guard.

Guess you'll have to find another reason to hate him.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you just intended to spit in the face of those who served their country in the Texas National Guard? Or maybe you intended to spit in the face of those who served their country during the Vietnam war but weren't actually in Vietnam?

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it looks like Bush actually volunteered for duty in Viet Nam when he was in the guard.

Cite a reference, please.

Rangel didn't even vote for it?

[raider_red]

Congressman Rangel didn't even vote for the bill? Or did he just not show up?

I hope this puts to rest the rumors about the Republicans' desire to reinstate the draft. It's interesting that the only person to even introduce the idea in the legislature is a Democrat.

Way to miss the point, dude.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Didn't Kerry promise to replace American troops in Iraq with troops provided by a new coalition?

Congressional Children in Military

[porkchop_d_clown]

Senator Tim Johnson's son is in the 101st Airborne and served in Iraq.

Representative Duncan Hunter's son is a Marine and was in Iraq as of February 2004.

Senator Joe Biden's is on active duty, but not in Iraq.

Outside of Congress: John Ashcroft's son is active duty Navy, deployed to the Persian Gulf

Rep Kennedy - the guy Moore mocks in the movie? His nephew is active duty, but Moore edited that out of the final movie.

So, excluding nephews and Ashcroft's son, and excluding the guy who wasn't deployed to Iraq, that gives us 2 sons out of 535 congressmen, a ratio of 268 to 1. According to the cenus bureau, 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. If we guess that 300,000 service men and women have been deployed to Iraq and different times, the ratio of households to Iraqi vets is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349 to 1.

Thus, children of congressmen are over-represented in Iraq.

Re:Congressional Children in Military

[cephyn]

Whoa whoa whoa, look I'm not trying to "fix" these to support either side, I just want to point out that a)you are guessing the number of troops in iraq and b) what is a household? is congressman - household a proper comparison?

I'm not saying I know, in fact I don't know. And that's the point -- statistics with guessing and loose comparisons aren't statistics - they're guesses.

Uh. You do realize that France only deployed

[porkchop_d_clown]

fifteen hundred troops to Afghanistan, right?

And Germany sent, whoa, two thousand.

Yeah, that'll impress the hell out of the locals. Between the two of them, combined, they sent less than five percent the number of troops the US did.

Re:Uh. You do realize that France only deployed

[antifoidulus]

HAHAHAHAHA, I love your math!
I know that your tiny little brain can't handle 3rd grade math, so I will go slow, OK? By your calculations, in Afghanistan, the US has 3,500x20 = 70,000 troops. The total force in Afghanistan is only about 18,000 troops and that includes all the troops from all over the world. I ordinarily don't flame, but when someone says something this stupid, they deserve to be mocked. Once again, graduate from elementary school and maybe we can talk.

And who voted for it?

[mec]

And who put the current draft registration system in place? Republican President Jimmy Carter. The bill was filibustered in the Senate by Democratic Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, but the Senate overrode the veto.

Oh wait. Reality check. Carter was a Democrat, and the opposition and filibuster were conducted by Republicans.

Re:Republican Methodology

[kalidasa]

Only cowards use the overrated mod on a posting that hasn't been modded up. If you honestly believe my posting deserves to be modded down, use a mod that will be metamodded.

Bullshit.

[phyruxus]

>>Except that it looks like Bush actually volunteered for duty in Viet Nam when he was in the guard.

Where are your sources? Bush was AWOL, and even *that* was too much for him so he went campaigning. Bush also admitted, on February 8, that he DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO GO TO VIETNAM.

Thanks for spitting in the face of everyone who actually DID serve in Vietnam.
Like hmmm... John Kerry? :P Guess you'll have to find another thread to troll in.

Jackass^2.

Re:Bullshit.

[mattACK]

This is true. Bush checked "Unwilling to work overseas" on his paperwork. This may sound like volunteering for Vietnam, but Vietnam is actually overseas.

"It's this whole other country." - Forrest Gump

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words:
"Palace Alert"

b-baggins, are you in any service?

[phyruxus]

>>In fact, if Vietnam is any example, a draft would unfairly pull in working class people because they're less likely to be able to get exceptions because of college or a cushy tour in National Guard.

He was talking about Vietnam, not Iraq. Don't get your panties in a bunch. He didn't disparage the honor of the National Guard. You're just trolling. Get lost.

National Guardsmen: How do you feel about being asked/ordered to risk your life in Iraq, now that we know there was no WMD? We know our soldiers will serve whenever, wherever, without question, and we thank them and honor them for that. It is the place of the CIVILIAN to ensure that the soldier's service is applied responsibly and ONLY when NEEDED. It is reprehensible, and TREASON, to send a soldier into war when war is not justified. Iraq is an unjust war. Bush lied, continues to lie, continues to make vague implications. The only reason Our Boys are dying in Iraq is because Bush "has faith it is the right thing to do." An ex soldier passed this on to me: Wish in one hand and shit in the other. Which one will fill up first? No matter how much W WISHES Iraq was necessary, it's shit, bar none.

Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush (QUOTE)

[kruelio]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Sen. John Kerry yesterday warned parents and grandparents here that it's "possible" that President Bush will reinstate the draft to handle the war in Iraq if re-elected, while promising that he would not take that step.

"If George Bush were to be re-elected -- given the way that he has gone about this war, and given the avoidance of responsibility in North Korea, Iran and other places -- it is possible," he said. "I can't tell you.

"I will tell you this: I will not reinstate the draft," the Massachusetts Democrat said in response to a question from a member of the audience of a town-hall meeting here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040923 -1 20959-7099r.htm

the freaks are out

[phyruxus]

don't mind ol' Rush Limbaugh (bbaggins)... he's just going through withdrawal while he loses his court case.

It's clear that you weren't attacking the Guard .. he just wanted to impress his skinhead pals.

Oops

[AoT]

You're right, I was thinking of the No Child Left Behind program. Which has not been adequately funded.

Re:Oops

[bofkentucky]

adequately funded is a lot different than an unfunded mandate, I'd be more than happy if the feds got out of the education business altogether, or on the flip side, took over education completely to break up the worthless and corrupt DOE's in some states, like my own. Strict national standards, including say, requiring HS science classes to be taught by people with a science major in college. Holding teachers accountable for student performance is a feature that should be implemented, if I don't do my job I get fired, why can't we do that to teachers, oh wait they're unionized/tenured.

Re:Republican Methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Re:Republican Methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

HEY! Who are you calling a coward!?

Republicans have left reality

[phyruxus]

I posted two comments with links rebutting this asshole's nonsense. The world acknowledges there was no wmd, and Bush himself admits he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam.

So to recap: Telling lies that serve republican interests: +1. Telling the truth, backing it up with links to sources, -1 troll.

Yeah, you republicans are fucking realistic.

>>In fact, if Vietnam is any example, a draft would unfairly pull in working class people because they're less likely to be able to get exceptions because of college or a cushy tour in National Guard.

He was talking about Vietnam, not Iraq. Don't get your panties in a bunch. He didn't disparage the honor of the National Guard. You're just trolling. Get lost.

National Guardsmen: How do you feel about being asked/ordered to risk your life in Iraq, now that we know there was no WMD?We know our soldiers will serve whenever, wherever, without question, and we thank them and honor them for that. It is the place of the CIVILIAN to ensure that the soldier's service is applied responsibly and ONLY when NEEDED. It is reprehensible, and TREASON, to send a soldier into war when war is not justified. Iraq is an unjust war. Bush lied, continues to lie, continues to make vague implications. The only reason Our Boys are dying in Iraq is because Bush "has faith it is the right thing to do." An ex soldier passed this on to me: Wish in one hand and shit in the other. Which one will fill up first? No matter how much W WISHES Iraq was necessary, it's shit, bar none.

Eh?

[porkchop_d_clown]

What fix? What guessing? Two congressmen have sons on active duty in Iraq, a third has an active duty son not in Iraq. This isn't "guessing" it's a factual rebuttal of Moore's oft-repeated claim that children of Congress aren't paying the price for Congress' support of the war.

Re:Eh?

[cephyn]

LOL you admit yourself that you are guessing:

" If we guess that 300,000 service men and women have been deployed to Iraq and different times, the ratio of households to Iraqi vets is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349 to 1."

see that? GUESS. Never guess in statistics. Never assume 1 congressman = 1 household. They could be different things. I'm not saying they are, I'm not saying they're not, I'm just saying you have to be sure. If you guess (as you said you did) then its not a statistic. It's a guess.