Ready Reserve calls up single mom
Tonya Stewart, 43, of Hellam Township doesn't know where she'll serve her 18-month tour of duty.
By JOSEPH MALDONADO
For the Daily Record/Sunday News
Saturday, November 27, 2004

In 1992, Tonya Stewart left the Army after serving 13 years in uniform, believing her service to her country was over.
Now, 12 years later, she's been recalled to active duty.

"I leave for an 18-month tour of duty in two weeks," the 43-year-old Hellam Township resident said. "And that's about all I really know."

Stewart, visiting her sister's family for Thanksgiving dinner along with her boyfriend and 9-year-old daughter, said she had received letters and phone calls from the military since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 warning her that she may be recalled.

"But to be honest, I never really thought they'd do it," Stewart, who works for Susquehanna Communications, said with a laugh. "I'm a little too old to be running around diving in the sand."

She was recalled from the Army's Individual Ready Reserve, composed of men and women who, even though they have completed their tours of duty, are still obligated to return to service if the government calls for them.

Some former active duty soldiers are required to serve in the ready reserve. For Stewart, when she left the service as part of the military's mid-90s downsizing, she was required to remain on the ready reserve list. She had a choice of accepting a lump sum or an annuity when she volunteered to leave the service. The annuity paid more but also had a greater commitment to the ready reserve.

"If I would have taken the lump sum, they wouldn't have called me," she said.

She's not the oldest former soldier among the 100 ready reservists in her unit recalled to active duty. Currently serving in her unit, the 844th Engineering Battalion, which works out of the Army's Camp Atterbury in Edinburgh, Ind., is one man in his 70s.

"He was an officer who apparently didn't sign his retirement paperwork when he left the Army," Stewart said. "So as far as the military is concerned, he never really retired."

Stewart said she could sense that the military was becoming more serious about recalling the ready reservists. Each letter she received from the Army, each call, sounded more serious and urgent.

With the military calling up single moms in their 40s and senior citizens, Stewart speculated that a draft can't be too far behind.

"I've been saying this for a while that a real draft is coming," she said.

She's worried about a draft because she believes the war in the Middle East will be dragging on for many years to come and that she may see the day her daughter, Kayla Hengst, is the one diving in the sand.

Stewart has tried to explain to Kayla why she is going to miss spending this Christmas. But, she said, Kayla doesn't really understand.

But Kayla understands her mom's tour of duty will not only cause her to miss this Christmas, but probably next year's as well.

"I will write her everyday," Kayla said. "And send her stuff."

Kayla's father, Roy Hengst, will care for Kayla while Stewart is away. Stewart and Hengst have been a couple for more than 13 years.

"I'm not happy about her leaving," he said. "But there isn't a whole lot I can do about it."

Her sister, Wanda Poff, isn't happy about it either, but she was intent on making Thursday's holiday special.

"This Thanksgiving means a lot," Poff said. "We are going to enjoy the day and hope she comes home safe for future holidays."

Following is the transcript of the Ryan video:

RYAN: I thank the gentlemen. I rise in opposition of this bill. But I would like to clarify something. We're not trying to scare kids. This president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country. And if people have said today, "Why are people believing this, why are people believing this big Internet hoax?" - well, it's the same people that told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Same people that told us we were gonna be able to use the oil for reconstruction money. Same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. Same people, same president, that told us the Taliban is gone. Same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out. Same president that tells us Iraq is going just great.

Same president that tells us the economy is going just great. Same people that told us the tax cut was gonna create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only costs $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion.

So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying. Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, or that has been told to these college students, has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops. The Pentagon says we need more troops. And this president can't get 'em from the international community. There's only one option left. Let's be honest with the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

I can't see how in the world we can just assume there wouldn't be one..benefits or no benefits. The numbers just don't add up.

George W. Bush's word is far from golden..
so just because he said so isn't good enough for many. We also have so many other foreign issues on the table. Iraq is claiming ALL our resources already.

I believe when this happens, Democrats and (moderate) Republicans alike will be up in arms.

The characteristics of the actions in Iraq simply don't justify something as sobering as a Draft re-instatement..not even close.

It's a huge wake-up call. Think about it.

Mo

..with a son who soon could be elligable within Bush's term..

I need a bit more than someone's token bet or unsubstantiated statement.
As do many, many Americans.

If you have any facts or substance to your assurances, I'd love to hear them, though.

Sadly..the facts stack up against your opinion..as much as I wish you were right.

Is any one else worried?

Mo

Yong Kim / Daily News
Gennaro Pellegrini Jr., a 31-year-old Philadelphia police officer, is one of several thousand reservists or ex-soldiers who are going to the bloody war in Iraq under what the Pentagon calls ``a stop-loss'' program--but critics are calling ``a back-door draft.'' ``I was mad,'' Pellegrini said last week, and his anger has only grown over the last six months of training in Texas and Louisiana.

MANY RESERVISTS FEELING A 'DRAFT'

By WILLIAM BUNCH

[email protected]

GENNARO PELLEGRINI JR., a 31-year-old Philadelphia police officer, was playing Sony Playstation video games with a nephew one night last April when a single phone call turned his world upside down.

He was just two weeks away from the end of a six-year hitch in the Pennsylvania National Guard, one of several signs that Pellegrini was hitting a new phase in life.

As he neared his third anniversary as a cop patrolling the streets around Fishtown, he was now also engaged to be married. And a highly successful amateur welterweight boxer, he was also training for his first professional fight at the legendary Blue Horizon arena on North Broad.

That's when the commander from his National Guard armory called with some stunning news. The Pentagon, invoking the fine print in his enlistment papers, was not only extending his tour for up to 18 months, but was calling him up for active duty.

He was told to begin training to go to Iraq by year's end.

"I was mad," Pellegrini said last week, and his anger has only grown over the last six months of training in Texas and Louisiana. He said he's too out of shape to fight, and his fiancee broke up with him. He called the conflict in Iraq "a so-called war" and sees U.S. troops as caught in an impossible situation.

But like it or not, he left yesterday to begin his service.

Pellegrini is one of several thousands reservists or ex-soldiers who are going to the bloody war in Iraq under what the Pentagon calls "a stop-loss" program - but critics are calling "a back-door draft."

The Philly cop is hardly alone. Officials estimated that some 40,000 National Guard members have had their tours extended involuntarily, most for hazardous duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In recent weeks, the Pentagon has been digging deeper, calling on an additional 4,000 ex-soldiers - many of whom left the military years ago to start jobs or raise families - who are part of a pool called the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR, to resume active duty because troops are stretched so thin.

The Pentagon moves are legal - some 110,000 former troops agreed to belong to the IRR when they left active duty before their eight-year commitment - and officials say there is considerable precedent. Nearly 15,000 IRR soldiers were called up for the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, although for much less than the one-year commitment sought for the new conflict.

Still, with no end to the insurgency in Iraq in sight, the call-ups are starting to exhibit increasing resistance in ways that - like some other aspects of the fighting in Gulf region - may remind some people of the Vietnam era.

The New York Times reported last week that roughly half of the 4,000 IRR call-ups are trying to avoid their service either through official channels or by simply not showing up.

Among the larger pool of National Guard call-ups - the category that Pellegrini belongs to -- there are some looking to win conscientious objector status, and several have gone to court seeking legal protection.

In one Sacramento, Calif., case that's been receiving publicity, a married father of two serving in the California Army National Guard went to court this month in a last-ditch effort to prevent his deployment to Iraq, supposed to happen this week. His lawyers have argued that President Bush lacks the authority to make these "stop-loss" call-ups, but the unnamed soldier has already lost one round, and legal experts doubt he will succeed.

In the meantime, an ad hoc network of military families and anti-war activists has been working closely with soldiers looking for ways to contest their recent call-ups. Officials here say they're getting increasing calls for aid as the situation on the ground in Iraq seems to deteriorate.

"We get calls every day from people who are in the military reserves who are getting orders to go and who are saying, 'This is something that I don't want to do,' " said Bill Galvin, of the Center for Conscience and War, based in Washington, D.C.

Galvin said some of the most dire calls are from reservists who have already served one tour in Iraq and are getting orders to go back. "Some of them have said, 'I'd go to jail before I'd go back there,' " he said. "They say they've witnessed things or participated in things that have caused them terrible trouble sleeping at night, and they don't want to put themselves back in the middle of it."

Meanwhile, many soldiers who could be called up - and their families - wait and worry that they'll get a phone call like the one Pellegrini received.

"It's just like a back-door draft," said Ben Sears, a just-retired West Philadelphia High history teacher whose 28-year-old son is finishing a five-year Army enlistment in San Antonio. He said that Zachary Sears, a graduate of Philly's Masterman High and of American University, will be placed on the IRR if he doesn't re-enlist.

"Last week when he was home, he said he's not going to Iraq," Sears said. "He really hates the war - he's always been against it."

Most reservists and ex-soldiers are like Pellegrini - willing to obey their orders, but not particularly happy about it. Pellegrini said that he was just two weeks away from completing his National Guard obligation when he was called at his rowhouse in Port Richmond.

Yesterday, Pellegrini was slated to leave for a base in Louisiana, destined for an undisclosed location in Iraq. His unit A Company 1/111 from Northeast Philadelphia is slated to serve a year over there, possibly longer.

In the meantime, Pellegrini's been watching some news on TV, and he doesn't like what he sees. "This isn't a war they're giving us over there - this is policing stuff," said Pellegrini, who knows a thing or two about law enforcement.

He also knows something about putting up a fight. With a 17-1 record as an amateur, Pellegrini sent James Andre Harris onto the canvas in the 4th round when he fought this May at the Blue Horizon, his one and only pro bout.

Preparing for Iraq may be tougher than anything he's encountered in the ring. He said his fiancee left him rather than deal with his long absence, and hours of classroom training have left him in worse - not better - physical condition.

Now, he said, "I just want to get it done, come home, and continue my life."

Reinstatement of the draft is imminent, war correspondent and author Christopher Hedges told a crowd of more than 120 students and residents yesterday at Manhattanville College.

"We are losing the war in Iraq very badly, but the Bush administration will not walk away from the debacle without trying to reoccupy huge swaths of the territory they have lost," Hedges said. While working for The New York Times, he covered fighting in Central America, the Balkans and the Middle East, including Iraq during the first Gulf War.

To regain territory lost in Iraq, it will take double or triple the current 140,000 troops, Hedges said during the last lecture in a series called "The Costs of War."

The reservists and National Guard members who make up half of the U.S. forces are stretched to the breaking point and need relief, he said, and the draft is the only way to assemble the numbers needed. Reintroduction of the draft will be made in the name of the war on terrorism soon after an attack in the United States or abroad, he predicted.

"The war in Iraq will no longer be an abstraction," he said. "It will become deeply personal. In the next few weeks look for shifts in administration policy leading in the direction of an escalation of the war."

Hedges encountered no detractors at Manhattanville, unlike his experience at Rockford (Ill.) College in May 2003, when he was booed off the stage while giving a commencement speech shortly after President Bush's battleship announcement that the U.S. mission in Iraq had been "accomplished."

On the contrary, many in the audience last night said they had braved rainy weather to hear Hedges indict the seductiveness of war and the dangers of mindless jingoism as an antidote to their depression over the results of the presidential election.

"It's been a hard week and there are much harder times ahead. That's why it is so important for us all to be together tonight," said Connie Hogarth, who has a peace and justice center on the Manhattanville campus named after her. "After we finish grieving, we have to get back to working for peace and justice, and an end to this war and its killing."

Hedges' audience remained rapt as he wove poetry, mythology, history and Freudian psychology with anecdotes about colleagues lost on distant battlefields and his own brushes with death. He criticized military heroic ideals that thrive during war and the way war distorts the human imagination. In the fervor of war the individual sacrifices thought for a false sense of belonging to something larger, he said.

"At the end of the Vietnam War, we became a better country in our defeat," Hedges said. "We asked questions about ourselves that we had not asked before. We were humbled, maybe even humiliated. We were forced to step outside of ourselves and look at us as others saw us. And it wasn't a pretty sight."

Those who confuse his anti-war stance with an anti-soldier position are mistaken, Hedges said. "War in the end is always about betrayal. Betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and idealists by cynics."

I think this is nothing but more scare tactics...

I have family and friends in the Military ( some high up on the chain of command) and no one has said anything about a draft...

I'm not buying into this scare tactic...

I take life day by day...I plan on focusing on what I can do to help make my community and country a better, safer, place..not live my life in fear, of what might be. Lifes too short

~LymeBrat

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
That's nice. I won't take the bet, though.. this is immeasurable to me.

..with a son who soon could be elligable within Bush's term..

I need a bit more than someone's token bet or unsubstantiated statement.
As do many, many Americans.

If you have any facts or substance to your assurances, I'd love to hear them, though.

Sadly..the facts stack up against your opinion..as much as I wish you were right.

Is any one else worried?

Mo

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 28 November 2004).]

---

Hey, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. If you're so sure it's going to happen, easy money for you right? Why not take the bet?

HOWEVER... i do feel the need to point out something specifically mentioned in the article, mo's first post; the downsizing of the military in the 90's.

george bush was not president then... AND i do believe that our military was taken to dangerously low priority.

and one more thing... (man, am i stupid... will have to duck i am sure (c; )

believe me i empahasize with those reservists and national guard members, etc. especially those with their contracts extended. how sad.

but i realize too that a contract was signed, and that it is certainly not a good bet, entering a contract for a period of years believing there was no way possible they would have to serve.

did they really think it was a paycheck for nothing? maybe a little college tuition reimbursement for dessert? all for one weekend a month and a few weeks in the summer.

playing the lottery might have been a better bet!

yes, it absolutely sucks!

as far as the draft, i really don't think so. but ya know - MAYBE. time will tell. and the time to pray about it is now.

It was stated that a draft would be reinstituted after another terrorist attack on US soil. Well, ha the agressive tactits of the current administration has stopped that from happening, while the previous administation failed in this endeavor. But even if we were subjected to another attack a draft would not be needed, recruitment would rise by itself as men and women would WANT to fight against such an enemy. Just as there was a surge after 9-11.

1. Not let people leave the military when their contract expires. If the military person breaks a contract, they can be put in prison. If the military does it..nothing.

2. Recall old aged military personell and disabled personell.

*There was a case in my city of a young man who joined the army. He was perm. disabled in Iraq. The Gov. is now saying he must return the $2,000 sign on bonus.

***
Personally, I am for the draft. It would put more pressure on Congress to really THINK-- is it worth it. It would also make the American public THINK before they want our Gov. to intervene in every blasted conflict on the planet.

Also, I am in favor of the draft for women. If you want equal rights, you must have equal responsibility.

LB - Well, let's see if those I know outrank those you know
seriously.. all thier friends who went into reserves years ago are now active again.

I wish it was just a scare tactic, but, again..with nothing solid to assure that, so many things pointing to it, I just can't see it as that.

Maybe it's different with a son coming of age..but also many Americans are very legitimately concerned,
and not because we choose to "live our lives in fear"

Loribelle - those are all good points IMO.

Despite all that being true, the fact we are talking about an unjusrifiable War and decrepid foreign policy with poor planning and handling of our surrent resources is the problem I see with Bush..if there is a draft come out of that..people will be irate in this country.

Sent - thanks. You are the first giving me something to look into.

Is it true we have ample number of troops in Europe available and they can be spared and all go into the Middle Eastern occupation for perhaps years to come?? I'll check about that, that would make a difference. My relatives have said not.

I'm confused about previous administrations being brought into the thread, this is about the here and now...the probability of impending draft.

Kara - I do agree that a draft will make congress and the public think about what's going on, and about future responsibilities.

Mo

No Child Unrecruited

Should the military be given the names of every high school student in America?

By David Goodman

Recruiting the Class of 2005

No Child Left Behind Act
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."

But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.

"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."

The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."

To many educators, however, requiring the release of personal information intrudes on the rights of students. "We feel it is a clear departure from the letter and the spirit of the current student privacy laws," says Bruce Hunter, chief lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators. Until now, schools could share student information only with other educational institutions. "Now other people will want our lists," says Hunter. "It's a slippery slope. I don't want student directories sent to Verizon either, just because they claim that all kids need a cell phone to be safe."

The new law does give students the right to withhold their records. But school officials are given wide leeway in how to implement the law, and some are simply handing over student directories to recruiters without informing anyone -- leaving students without any say in the matter.

"I think the privacy implications of this law are profound," says Jill Wynns, president of the San Francisco Board of Education. "For the federal government to ignore or discount the concerns of the privacy rights of millions of high school students is not a good thing, and it's something we should be concerned about."

Educators point out that the armed services have exceeded their recruitment goals for the past two years in a row, even without access to every school. The new law, they say, undercuts the authority of some local school districts, including San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, that have barred recruiters from schools on the grounds that the military discriminates against gays and lesbians. Officials in both cities now say they will grant recruiters access to their schools and to student information -- but they also plan to inform students of their right to withhold their records.

Some students are already choosing that option. According to Principal Shea-Keneally, 200 students at her school -- one-sixth of the student body -- have asked that their records be withheld.

Recruiters are up-front about their plans to use school lists to aggressively pursue students through mailings, phone calls, and personal visits -- even if parents object. "The only thing that will get us to stop contacting the family is if they call their congressman," says Major Johannes Paraan, head U.S. Army recruiter for Vermont and northeastern New York. "Or maybe if the kid died, we'll take them off our list." What do you think?

Loribelle, you are right, they did sign up for this, maybe it was just not what they imagined it to be and the reality is clearly setting in now.

I think lots of people want to fight for our country and are very patriotic, but then when they get there and see the horror of dead bodies, etc, it becomes a different reality, where you REALLY have to believe in what you are doing!!!

Sent, haven't they already been shutting down bases in other areas for over a year now and deploying people to the middle east? I am not sure about this. From what I have read, the numbers are very low compared to what we are going to need, especially if something more happens with Iran or N. Korea. Then, personally, I think we will have to have a draft.

Kara, really good points-all of it! I don't think people-congress, young people, etc, really put enough logical thought into whether this is all worth it and something we really should be doing.

Is this going to solve the problem of global terrorism is the big question??? Isn't that where this all started from? 9/11 and terrorists?? I don't see how this is going to solve the problem. My own opinion as I have said is that I think it is making terrorism and anti-American sentiment even stronger in the middle east.

Mo, that is an unbelievable finding in the No Child Left Behind Act!! I can't believe that! I had a great talk on Thanksgiving by the way with a friend in education. He said for special education, unfortunately the no child left behind act, is leaving thousands of unfortunate children left behind. Very sad! I do not like at all this idea of providing the military with the name of every single student!!

I graduated from highschool in 1985--and my name (and all of my classmates) were given to the military.

As far as I know, this has been the case for years and years and has nothing to do with No Child Left Behind.

..and it's now mandatory, unless parents choose to "opt out"..schools loose funding if they do not comply.

Maybe your school did this voluntarily? Or the difference is that names, addresses, and contact info are given, or something else was different in 1985. (I remember it being voluntary through guidance counselors and recruitment visits.)

Nevertheless, educators are taken aback by the regulations of late.

Mo

Do I think a draft is a good idea?? now that is another question all together. I think two years of mandatory service is a good thing. This country affords it's citizens advantages not found anywhere else in the world why is it asking too much for it's people to stand a post for two years??

But that dosen't change my mind that I don't think there are enough people who agree with me about it to reinstitute the draft, or that there will be a need to do so.

Your post title is "Impending Draft.." which makes it seem as though you're very confident that it will happen despite no evidence....just pure speculation even when the president adamently says 'never'. If you're not even sure enough to back it up with solid consideration, then maybe your post title should've been something like "Do you think a draft will occur despite what the president promised?"

But you chose to use a scare tactic approach with no evidence, and you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, so I really don't think you believe it's going to happen. However, it does make a good topic for another round of anit-Bush whipping...but completely unjustifiable.

No evidence & no consideration=meaningless words

No evidence & no consideration=meaningless words

24,

Again I'll say that bashing and criticizing the messenger does nothing to refute a valid question thought about by many Americans, backed by
supportive information , some of which I have posted here.

In addition to that, I find your repeated assertions of nothing more than pure dismissal, and mockery, very inconsiderate in light of the fact that I made clear my concerns about this, and that they are not political. I think this also hits home for many others in a Non-Partisan fashion.

Your above post is contributing nothing but more of your own opinion, no solid input..and quite frankly becoming offensive.

OK..we know 24 Bit believes there will be no draft because the President says so and I'm Henny Penny.

Got it. I would appreciate it if you would stop repeating yourself now.

As I also said above, any evidence to support your statements would be appreciated.

Mo

This is a rough thing, because I also have military in my family and can't express enough how honorable it is to make the choice to fight for your country. They do it unconditionally. I admire them greatly.

Sent, I can kinda see the idea that "sranding post" for two years if
[i]needed and justified[i] is also a novel idea.

But in reality..(unjustified, poorly executed War issue aside for a moment)

there are young men and women who just aren't with characteristics that make good military men and women.

The thought of sending any of them there straight out of high school not by their choice, under THIS kind of leadership, poilicy and decision making, and the way things are headed in the Middle East is incomprehensable to me.

Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:

24bit says:
[b]But you chose to use a scare tactic approach with no evidence, and you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, so I really don't think you believe it's going to happen. However, it does make a good topic for another round of anit-Bush whipping...but completely unjustifiable.

No evidence & no consideration=meaningless words

24,

Again I'll say that bashing and criticizing the messenger does nothing to refute a valid question thought about by many Americans, backed by
supportive information , some of which I have posted here.

In addition to that, I find your repeated dismissal, and mockery very inconsiderate in light of the fact that I made clear my concerns about this, and that they are not political. I think this also hits home for many others in a Non-Partisan fashion.

Your above post is contributing nothing but more of your own opinion, no solid input..and quite frankly becoming offensive.

OK..we know 24 Bit believes there will be no draft because the President says so and I'm Henny Penny.

Got it. I would appreciate it if you would stop repeating yourself now.

As I also said above, any evidence to support your statements would be appreciated.

Mo

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 28 November 2004).][/B]

---

Oh give me a freaking break Mo. I have family in the military, and have young ones in my family coming up to age as well, so lets don't get so high and mighty. I have a problem with people making scare tactic speculations that they can't back up. I'm sure some find that just a little offensive.

I am backing it up. It's not a scare tactic, it's a real issue. I'm tiring of what seems like a bully tactic. That doesn't make the issue "go away".

If anyone else finds the topic offensive, they can say so..or scroll..

But you are posting several times now, and so far, you have not backed up your statements (aside from Bush saying never, despite the "rumor on the internets"), and I'd appreciate it if you stop simply bashing me and the idea over and over and over again.

Your opinion is made clear. However..despite your opinion,
I think the topic is worthy of balanced discussion and information/input.

I'm interested in anything valid in reassuring that we are NOT headed for a draft.

Mo

"there are young men and women who just aren't with characteristics that make good military men and women."

believe me there are many of those there now! ask anyone in the military, they will have stories for you.

and second, 24bit, i don't think mo is posting to scare all of us, i think she is bringing this to discussion because she is scared, as most parents are.

it's just a discussion.

hope all of you are improving health-wise, best wishes all around.

Loribelle, that is interesting. Does your son say people are there who shouldn't be? I am sure that is quite probably true. I remember my dad telling me some stories about WWII about men not being prepared for what they were going to see.

Of course Mo is not posting this just as a scare tactic or to be melodramatic.

It is an obvious concern to anyone with common sense who reads the news and knows what is going on and has children or nieces/nephews. It is a very valid concern.

To me it is just obvious and common sense that if more things happen-like with Iran or N. Korea, we will need a lot more people than we have now.

I have mixed feelings about Sents idea of a mandatory two year draft. In some ways I agree with it (for men and women) and in other ways I don't. I am glad I am not the decision maker or even close on that one.

Those "rumors on the internets" !

That's good for a chuckle in a serious thread. Thanks Cindy!

I didn't figure you would take it very seriously Mo. No offence intended.

Lisa,

It was a brief statement by Bush speaking about the rumors of draft on the intrnets
He used plural as his diction is not always perfect as Mo poited out.

and his last stated was above in quotations.

That quote has always cracked me up..
I thought you were kidding..

( and, c'mon 24, he just plain said said "internets"..like Reagan saying ketsup is a vegetable, a hundred things about Clinton, ect..some stuff can just be funny )

Cindy, though..if you were posting that in support of there being no draft, I really don't see it as at all reassuring, most don't.. based on his track record and the actual state of the situation.

Of course he said it wrong!

quote:

---

Originally posted by SentByHim:
IMHO there are enough troops stationed where they are no longer needed that could be redeployed to avoid any sort of draft. Such as in Germany and other places in Europe. With the major threat of the cold war over many bases in these areas can be closed and our troops sent to the battle front. Japan is another area where we could redeploy troops from, the time has come for Japan to provide for their own defence. I don't see a big threat of the Imperial Goverment rising up again.

It was stated that a draft would be reinstituted after another terrorist attack on US soil. Well, ha the agressive tactits of the current administration has stopped that from happening, while the previous administation failed in this endeavor. But even if we were subjected to another attack a draft would not be needed, recruitment would rise by itself as men and women would WANT to fight against such an enemy. Just as there was a surge after 9-11.

Sent

---

Oh I agree the internets thing was funny but true and I also agree with sent, and with 24bit. regardless of all your articles I have never and probably will never worry over draft well not until the day they start one.

I just don't believe its gonna happen. I think it has got alot of the Nation's panties in a wad over somthing that is never gonna take place. At least not during this Adminastration.

Next-Until someone can explain what those satellite images, that I saw with my own eyes, of truck convoys going into Syria, just weeks before the war, then I am not writing off that there were no WMD's.

I checked the figures from the oil in Iraq and 80% is being used to rebuild Iraq.

Most of Iraq is peaceful. The country is the size of California, and outside the triangle people are living peaceful and they want our troops to stay until their own army is sufficiently built up, which takes time.

I checked the transcripts and again I do not see anyone from either party stating that the Taliban was gone. What was said was the Taliban was no longer in power and most have been killed.
The President never said Iraq is doing just great. He stated we have accomplished alot, still more needs to be done for the country to be strong and independent. He also stated that rough times were ahead of us in Iraq.

The Congressman's comments on the economy are insulting my intelligence so I am not going to even go there, but I highly recommend taking a few years of economy in college.

If the Congressman does not want to believe anything from the President then maybe he will believe something I heard on the news once, in which I researched. Use the search engine Google and type in "Terrorist Training Camps Iraq", then click on Salman Pak. Salman Pak is a traing camp in Iraq that has a Boeing 707 passenger jet for the terrorists to train in, which was verified by our very corrupt UN. That justified in my mind going to war. I do not want to wait and respond only when we are hit. We did that for 8 years and it did not work. 9/11 is eveidence of that. The terrorists have been attacking us long before Bush's foreign policy was implemented.
They hate us because of who we are and because we support Israel. The terrorist, Arafat, was given 98% of what he wanted for the Palestinians by the Iraeli's, during Clinton's reign, and Arafat turned it down. It was very apparent that they wanted the Jews removed from the face of the earth. The media has been sympathetic in portraying the so called leaders in Palestine. What kills me is most people do not even know the history in the Middle East and through ignorance they are sympathizing with the murderers, too.
If you want a good fiction read, with facts incorporated, regarding the Middle East, then read The Haj by Leon Uris.
Good places to get info is Factscheck.org, and Google.
Happy fact finding!

Lisa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
Congressman Tim Ryan spoke on the House floor last month (transcript and video available, the video is worth watching, a powerful delivery)

[b]Following is the transcript of the Ryan video:

RYAN: I thank the gentlemen. I rise in opposition of this bill. But I would like to clarify something. We're not trying to scare kids. This president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country. And if people have said today, "Why are people believing this, why are people believing this big Internet hoax?" - well, it's the same people that told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Same people that told us we were gonna be able to use the oil for reconstruction money. Same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. Same people, same president, that told us the Taliban is gone. Same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out. Same president that tells us Iraq is going just great.

Same president that tells us the economy is going just great. Same people that told us the tax cut was gonna create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only costs $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion.

So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying. Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, or that has been told to these college students, has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops. The Pentagon says we need more troops. And this president can't get 'em from the international community. There's only one option left. Let's be honest with the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 28 November 2004).][/B]

---

Especially on Syria and the peaceful state of Iraq and it's rebuilding..but anything on any of these statements would be of interest.

Also..the majority of the Republican party, eapecially those in the administration's forefront before, during, and even through the most recent convention have continued to say, first directly with NO hard evidence, using it to justify WAR.. and through the campaign continued to IMPLY there is a connection between Iraq and 911, and there is NONE.

Furthermore, if there was information at all on the infamous WMD's, the administration would be all over it. So far, all they have found are empty leads, and then Rice and others also based allot on tubes found that they said were "capable of holding plutonium"..and from that, investigators found that the empty tubes were not at all capable of even holding the substance. It's embarassing. (transcript of recent PBS news show "NOW" again went over how little they EVER had on this claim)

We were attacked by AlQeada..nothing has been done to address them since we pulled out of Afghanistan. The country that harbored
and funded them has and will remain untouched. This administration has donne nothing to protect us against those who attacked us, and is following a long standing agenda to attain a foothold in the Middle east to control oil.

Furthermore, the unilateral acrion and continued destruction of Iraq and it's people has strengthened AlQaeda greatly.

Bush, Cheney, and all their friends have made astronomical amounts of money off this War through privatizarion of all War services..dismissal of the UN was key in those transactions.

The economy is in shambles, our national debt is mind-blowing.

Syria has been the ever growing battle cry, and very frightening, because AGAIN, based on NO evidence, implications that that's where the embarassingly non existant WMD's MUST be.

Again, opinions by posters mean little in all of this.
Check the facts on all of this and you will see a very different picture.

Congressman Ryan illustrates why the Presidents word means very little at this point. (and IMO, so do the words of those echoing Bush with no valid information to justify it.)

There is plenty that invalidates the administration's position(s).

So please..If you have facts to refute any of this (not heresay or assumption), facts to refute the Congressman's statements, or facts to support the Bush administrations actions, or the thread topic..on an impending Draft: "Bring 'em on"

Mo

PS: Sent, you too.
There is no indication of what you are saying about troops in Europe available in ample supply. The bases are already down to a minimum. The pentagon just yesterday has ordered more troops for Iraq.

Casualties increase daily.

This war has been carried off due to the privatization of services.

Due to this privatization of services,many services provided by companies closely connected to Cheney and Bush,we have not depended on our allies.

Since we do not have the allies,we did not have to open the bidding for many private services that are needed.These services are provided by many crony companies.Thus our allies are not needed and kept out of the loop and services once primarily provided by military personel have now been privatized.

The privatization of war has made it so the draft thus far is not needed and as Bush stated before the election,on the campaign trail,"Don't worry about it."

The hidden agenda in the NCLB is absurd.One that should be expected though in this day.
Think of all the other agendas that are passed because they are the trailers of bigger bills and they slip by right under our noses without any discussion.

If there is going to be a draft,well then, let us at least be open and honest about something that carries so much respect and dignity,serving your country.

The draft was in place before,why trail it onto the NCLB program and use blackmailing tactics to comply?

Many news sources won't touch this one until it's on our doorstep. That's why not finding ANY solid information to asure it WILL NOT, and much pointing to the fact that it will (do the math) .. is extremely disturbing.

These implications are not looking good at all. Seems more than reasonable to consider that Bush has been planning this (based on everything being put into place in the past year or more right under our noses), and put it off till after the election...especially since 80% of American's polled are against reinstatement of a Draft by this admin.

Being upfront about all of this would have been political suicide in an election year in light of the shaky grounds of this War and the admin's performance level.

Oiling up the draft machine?

The Pentagon is quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide. While officials say there's no cause to worry, some experts aren't so sure.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff

Nov. 3, 2003 | The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."

Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.

Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is stretched too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White House suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those spots, too.

Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.

"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft."

Rangel has provoked controversy in the past by insisting that a draft is the only way to fill the nation's military needs without exploiting young men and women from lower-income families. And, some suggest, by proposing military service from middle- and upper-class men and women, Rangel may be trying to diminish the odds of actually using them in combat. But Rangel is hardly alone in suggesting that the draft might be needed.

The draft, ended by Congress in 1973 as the Indochina War was winding down, was long a target of antiwar activists, and remains highly controversial both in and out of the military. Most military officers understandably prefer an army of volunteers and career soldiers over an army of grudging conscripts; Rumsfeld, too, has long been a staunch advocate of an all-volunteer force.

According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Pe�a, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now," Pe�a adds, "is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that."

**note: this was in 2003. (!)

The Pentagon has already had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up more reserves and extend tours of duty by a year -- all highly unpopular moves. Meanwhile, the recent spate of deadly bombings in Baghdad, Falluja and other cities, and increasing attacks on U.S. forces throughout Iraq have forced the U.S. to reconsider its plans to reduce troop deployments.

Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself -- clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard and reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far from their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes, the Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to reenlist -- a very high figure.

Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take into consideration military needs at home and around the globe.

"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the enlistment numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military manpower expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full impact on recruiting/retention hasn't been felt."

The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.

Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy at the Department of Defense, concedes that troop morale is hurting. "There are certainly concerns about future reenlistments. Iraq is not a happy place to be," Gilroy says. "[But] I think a certain amount of that is just grumbling. What we're interested in is not what people are saying, but what they do." So far, he reports, reenlistments and new enlistments remain on target.

Beth Asch, a military manpower expert at the Rand Corp. think tank, agrees that current retention and new enlistment figures are holding up. But she cautions that it may be too soon to know the impact of the tough and open-ended occupation in Iraq. "Short deployments actually boost enlistments and reenlistments," Asch says. "But studies show longer deployments can definitely have a negative impact."

While she thinks it is unlikely that the military will have to resort to a draft to meet its needs, Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and professor of government at Dartmouth College, is less confident.

"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either.

"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."

Purely in mechanical terms, a draft is a complicated and difficult thing to get off the ground. It would require an act of Congress, first, and then the signature of the president. Young men are already required to register with the Selective Service system, but if the bill were signed into law, it would still take half a year or more to get the new troops into the system. Federal law would require the Selective Service to immediately set up a lottery and start sending out induction notices. Local draft boards would have to evaluate them for medical problems, moral objections and other issues like family crises, and hear the appeals of those who are resisting the draft.

Under law, the first batch of new conscripts must be processed and ready for boot camp in 193 days or less after the start of the draft.

But if the mechanics of the draft are difficult, the politics could be lethal for Bush or any other top official who proposed it.

Already, the American public is almost as split today over the war in Iraq as it was about the war in Indochina nearly four decades ago, though not yet as passionately. But a new draft would likely incite even deeper resentment than it did then. In the last war fought by a conscript army, draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had to worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in that war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice President Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War era, college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining the National Guard.

But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After that, they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as we've seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty, too.

"If Congress and Bush reinstitute the draft, it would be the '60s all over again," predicts Lebow. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing such a bill, but then, look how many members of Congress just rolled over and played dead on the bill for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan."

New York Rep. Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced companion bills in the two houses of Congress to reactivate the draft last January, at a time when Bush was clearly moving toward an invasion. While both bills remain in the legislative hopper, neither has gone anywhere.

Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like Bandow at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it before the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he explains. "It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add an incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split the limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's denials, planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as independent military experts are. And that could explain the willingness to tune up the draft machinery.

John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in Philadelphia, says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in Iraq "because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't mean Bush would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran says. "To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a draft.

"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in place and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it," he explains.

"They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the click of a finger."

I really enjoyed the piece by the history professor that reckoned if it hadn't of been for the demonstrators, no telling what trouble Reagan would have gotten us into. Did you happen to buy one of his books?

I noticed you were back at it about the possibility of a draft? I really enjoyed the insipid cut and paste from the dimwit politician. It is clear to me that looking stupid will not stand in your way if there is the remotest possibility it might in some small way make Bush look bad. I know it escapes you that we are at war and if we need more men and if we have to, we will draft them! There's nothing very complicated about that particular problem.

In my opinion, you two birds are very disruptive to the good order and purpose of board! Posting propaganda of any kind serves no worthwhile purpose to the people on this board. It will surprise you that there are some pretty sharp cookies lurking about and you just make yourself look stupid when you post propaganda in place of truth!

I saw the satillite images of the truck convoys just before and during the war on Fox and CNN, though CNN only showed it once, that I am aware of. Also-during the first Gulf War, Saddam moved all his jets loaded with his toys into Syria and Iran so that he would not be caught with the bad toys he liked to surround himself with. I received this info from all cable news groups of which I verified on the net.
Your adverse reaction to privatization of some services smells of adversion to capitalism. I do not agree with Socialism. Soacialist countries have the same problems in society as we do, if not more, hmm...could most of our social problems stem from the breakdown of the family. Hmm...just a thought.
Now back to privatization...I suppose you are talking about Halliburtin (sp?)
I guess the fact that Clinton used the company more than any other administration would be of very little interest to you. This company has cornered the market on what they do because no company in the world has the equipment and expertise that they do. I checked on Cheney and he pulled out of Halliburtin completely. Go to Facts check.org and check the archives.

As far as my info on the rest of Iraq, I have a whole town where most of the young men and women are soldiers or reservists. I own a very popular restaurant in town. If there were any lies to this I would not be hearing all the positive comments regarding the rest of Iraq from these people and their families.
I also trust the info that comes out of a journalist, Mansoor Ijaz, who is a democrat and a Muslim, who raised 6 million for Clintons campaigns. He was the go between who was contacted by Somalia, in 96, through the Saudi's on three seperate occasions to hand over Osama bin Laden. Three times Clinton turned Mr. Ijaz and the Arab governement down. According to Mr. Ijaz, who is still a democrat, Clinton was preoccupied with Monica and he was not willing to undertake such a handful.

Now if you are really interested in the truth then do your own digging and do not trust everything you hear. But, if you are more interested in being angry and holding utter contempt for another human being, like non I have ever seen before, then just keep surrounding yourself with only what you want to hear.
And by the way, I am not in complete agreement with everything Bush has done, in fact I am very critical on more than one issue with him.
By the way, Al Quiada (sp?) has been severely hit finacially and in numbers of men. We have not been hit in our own country, and the homicide bombings in Israel, that Saddam was supplementing by paying the families money of homicide bombers, has significantly decreased and decreased even more when the security wall went up between the two countries.

Back to the war,our allies are over 30, which is pretty significant. The countries that were not supportive of the war-Germany, France, and Russia have been fattening their bank accounts with the Oil for Food scandel. No wonder they wanted nothing to change in Iraq. They just wanted us to keep offering deals to Saddam to come clean and have him keep lying to us. All Saddam had to show was how he destroyed the weapons, which when destroyed leave evidence that can't simply be removed. Instead we were suppose to take the word of a liar and a murderer. Well... 9/11 changed everyting.

If you want to learn the culture and history of the Arab people you have to read The Haj by Leon Uris, as I mentioned before, it will give you factual history and an insight into why we are where we are today with the Muslims. Educate yourself!!!
Go to as many foundations (think tanks) from both sides of view and research it yourself.
As I said before, if you want to be angry at Bush and hold utter contempt for him, then keep surrounding yourself with only what you want to hear.

Also true that noone should base their opinions on pure contempt. Many do, and that doesn't leave much room for enlightenment. I actually feel American's willingness to buy into contempt, and hear only what they want to hear is in part to blame for the situation we are in now.

Getting down to the facts, though, which are pretty much all I'm interested in.. I have to say that a flash on CNN is less than solid as to whether WMD's ever existed in Iraq.

Also, as far as our thirty Allies (that number I believe has dwindled)..but posted here, and available on the web is information on the actual numbers of troops from each. Again, simple Math shows calling this a strong coalition is absurd.

It's funny, but I actually do watch Fox ..and am amazed at the propaganda put forth. But, I watch it for balance..not because they are balanced, God no..but because it balances out the bigger picture. The rest I get from International news sources on the Web and cable. I also paruse CNN and MSNBC..
It's difficult to find anyone without a slant. Some certainly more slanted than others..but that's why you really do need to check several sources, especially these days.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't get information from "left" sources..and when I do, I say so..as in the above article. There are somethings the "left" will report on that others dare not..so if one understands the angle from which it is written, there can still be information contained that holds merit.

As far as "surrounding myself with what I want to hear"...hardly. Who wants to hear this? I'd really rather not!

Factcheck.org..haven't been there. I know that's the site Cheney referred the American public to on Haliburton in the debate, which I thought was odd.
Doesn't necessarily mean they are "Right slanted", I have no idea..but at least at that time, they must have had stuff on there that supported him as he totally dodged the Haliburton question.

Looking at Haliburton means one must be adverse to capialism and therefore supportive of socialism!! I see allot of leaps in your post. halliburton is a huge issue.

I see far more hate and contempt and quick and confidant dismissal coming from the Right on the media, and here on this board..this thread for that matter, also..allot of saying what other people want to hear, and rowsing acceptance without much to go on.

This should be of great concern, because out of that comes a trmendous amount of misinformation in support of this administration.

I also should say an unwillingness to accept this administrations claims does not mean this is out of some sort of personal "hatred"..time and time agin their claims have been proven false. Those false claims have had a profound impact on America and the World..so it is theoir actions that are, and should be, the main concern.

I'm sorry, Lisa, but much of what you have said has no tangible supportive evidence. None that I have seen.

It is interesting that the military in your town have good moral, and I'm glad they do. They need it to continue in this War. However that feeling you read from them actually meaning things are AOK over there, is not so clear cut.

Also interesting that Clinton was involved in Haliburton (?)..I did not know that, but..am also more focused on what's been happening the past four years and into the next term, as things happening in the World today are so very serious.

It would really help if you posted something specific on any of your views, with the source.

It seems only right in light of your strong statements and your stress of the importance of being educated on factual information..
that you might provide information to back it up, instead of the typical response we see here justification based on not much more than inferance and dismissal of anything you don't happen to agree with.

Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:

I see far more hate and contempt and quick and confidant dismissal coming from the Right,

---

Mo, I finally could read and came back to find this. I think this one topped the "internets" thing I posted.

Did you not see all the peace riots, I mean ralleys on TV. I am sorry but also coming right down to this little spot on OT the right tollerates FAR, FAR MORE than the left.

Why, because the left are the natural born protesters. That is what you do. you protest and we take it up the tail pipe!

I am not being ugly I am just stating my opinion and commenting to the statement that you made. I think that others would agree.

But, again..Fox and others showed a small group of rowdies as an example..

IMO, another willingly accepted portrayal..a leap out of contempt for opposing views.

No further comment on the OT example, that's in the text of all the posts here, plain as day IMO. I'm sure others would agree that we on the "left" are all those things you said, Cindy..but that wouldn't mean it's valid.

Mo

That's a concern for Dems and Repubs alike.

We can start other threads about all the rest of it..

So far, we have a poster making a bet there won't be one, a couple saying they are fine with Bush's statement on it..

Sent has proposed there are enough troops available on European bases..I'd really like to know that..can't find anything..

And, there is allot here worthy of discussion IMO that has taken place over the past year or more (verified) that looks like they have been planning for it..also..the point on the election's influence..
as well as simply doing the Math.

So far, objectively..we have allot pointing toward this being inevitable unless we pull out of the Middle East relatively soon..which the major players in Washington have been quoted as saying we are in for a long haul. Quotes from Military officials are also posted here.

There is nothing verifiable (yet) refuting this possibility/probability of a Draft, just opinion and a campaign promise.

Mo

What I said about the troops in Europe was that BASES WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE BECAUSE CLINOTON DOWNSIZED OUR MILITARY SO MUCH. BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A BAD IDEA AT THIS TIME AND THAT GERMANY AND OTHERS COULD PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN DEFENCE AND OUR PRESENCE IS NO LONGER NEEDED THERE. But of course you missed all that.

I also said about the draft that I PERSONALLY THOUGHT A TWO YEAR HITCH WAS A GOOD IDEA BUT THAT IT WAS NOT REASONABLE TO THINK IT COULD OR WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS DAY AND AGE BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE DISAGREED WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE.

This is not complicated to follow all it requires is that you actually read what is written. But is seems you are so busy thinking about your next point that you cannot listen to what is being said or focus on what you are reading that is contary to what you may think.

Try to focus and stay on topic. We are talking about the draft and the possibility of this present administration instituting one. And despite all your fear mongering I don't think there will be one. But this is a common tactict of the left. Attack with fear and hate, rumor and suppisition, then add in half truths and tada the sky is falling.

I remember when the soviets were going to bomb us at any second because of Reagan and his hard nosed stance...wrong. But that didn't stop the left from panicing. I remember when the econemy was going to collapse because of "voo doo" economics...wrong again..but that didn't stop you...and here we go again..same old same old how in the world are we susuposed to take you seriously??? It is like the little boy who cried wolf.

i don't know enough about what is going on or who to believe to give an opinion on it other than to hope it doesn't happen

Lisa,
If you have supportive information for anything you have claimed, please post it, and the source. Despite your asserting I must not be up on the issues, I'm quite certain I am..and see nothing that backs up what you say.

Factscheck is not the only available source for information, and as I said, I'll check that out as well.

As far as saying I'm just believing what I "want to feel" about a draft..
With a son who is turning 14, I am searching for any reason NOT to believe there will be one under this administrations current plans and the track we are on in the Middle East.
The main point here isn't about Bush for me, this concerns most American families.

There is allot of information pointing to it, and none to refute it. This concern is not a political one, though interesting how the subject triggers such defensiveness and attack by some here.

Bottom line ..sadly..lots of projection and accusations of ignorance doesn't change anything about what's going on in all of this.

Mo

PS Hey Sent, you slipped in there..
OK, I read your post..and this one.
How do we know they can or will close the bases? Any idea how many troops we are talking about if they can/will do that?
Why are military oficials not mentioning that possibility? What of all the unusual "preparations" here?

Honestly if we were able to hack into the pentegons maineframe and find the document of the centutury proving everything that we were saying you would find someway to dismiss it. Before the election their were more people involved posibly undesided viewing that needed info on both points but now what does it matter. who are we trying to prove our points to.

No matter what we post say think or do is not going to change your mind in the slightest. So why waste our time. We are already convinced.

Is is SOOOO unreasonable to ask that?

I'm sorry, but maybe you can try and understand why the strong opinions of you, 24, Sent, and Lisa based on nothing tangible is just not enough for people to trust in as assurance on the Draft issue.

No offence intended.

I have posted info worthy of consideration..and concern IMO. Again, I'm the only one here at the moment, but certainly not the only one concerned in this country.

If you don't feel like finding any supportive info, that's fine with me. Seems there's a few options that lie in there between choosing not to deal with it, and ganging up on me for posting on it and for having the NERVE to asking for information...
(how annoying I am!)

Just say you believe it and don't need to know why. Fine.

I thought some people, as I do..would want to know more.

Guess not.

Mo

With time I am sure it will change,our stability plan for the Middle East is vast and neighboring countries are looking a little testy.

I believe measures have been put into place concerning the draft.Measures preventing draft deferrments,such as the ones Cheney and others were so lucky to take advantage of,I think were brought before the big guns.
Measures also to curtail over the border ventures are also being planned.

So ,what is good for the goose will not be good for the gander if the draft is brought forth...unless you are a graduate of Bob Jones U and can get a big boy job in the Green Zone,which so many have done and are pulling in the big bucks from one of the connected companies helping with rebuilding.

I don't know if this helps and sorry to stick my nose in, but I see a communication problem here big time. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but this is what I'm seeing on this post.

Cindy, I don't think Mo is trying to change anyones mind. Again I hate to speak for her. But my impression is she is asking all of you do you have articles that back up your claims that there the military is well staffed enough to meet all of our needs for the next years, especially if Iraq continues on and on, or if anything happens with Iran or N. Korea.

Sent, I got the impression from Mo's comments that she heard what you said loud and clear. It was not that complicated actually-what you wrote and was pretty straightforward, so I am not sure why you think she wasn't listening. They were pretty basic facts. The question is how do you know for sure that there enough military personnel on these other bases, that just closing them and transferring these people will be enough to solve the shortage of men/women in other areas. Where are you getting this information? What are you basing it on? Do you have any article or something that states this? If not, no big deal, but I think this is what is being asked for her. Facts to back up peoples opinions.

I don't know what I personally think of this whole subject. I try not think about it, to be totally honest.

On a common sense gut instinct level, not based on fact, OF COURSE we are going to have a draft if it comes down to it and we need more people. I personally think this is going to come and I am not saying this as a fear mongering tool because who am I trying to scare?? No one! I just think its going to happen because we are going to need it based on all of the articles I have been reading about how the troops are burning out.

Speaking of research mo, do you ever research the propaganda you through up. Like, just for fun, would you put up some references on the new history being written by the left for Reagan?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

Pepster, I lived this history!

---

Well how old do you think we are for goodness sake! When you live through something, you still see it through your own set of glasses. It doesn't mean how you lived it was the truth. You are something else. Ok to disagree but don't call me a bird of all things. How about a turkey or a fox

Anyone who wants to turn it into a political boxing match, I'm not playing.

What's in our children's future in all of this is all I'm thinking about. Someone said there was nothing we could do anyway..but..I think there are a couple of options.

We have a siruation with no end in sight, strange provisions in place, campaign promises that hold little weight, 15 permanent military bases being built in Iraq, numbers that don't add up, troop death and casualty at a steady rate, reserves tapped, the Pentagon raising issues of other countries that may require the use of "military force", politicians, citizens, ect..all considering this a real poissibility. NOTHING to tell us otherwise.

Regardless of being branded a crazy, left wing, propaganda spewing, living in fear, ignorant, whatever else..

I'm in this concern just a Mom, and citizen. (thanks for getting that, Jill)

Certainly, noone is "required" to address any of this, and I have pointed out that simple opinion or put downs, or angry denial means nothing as far as the issue.

That's all there have been..except Sent..

Actually, in a strange ironic twist, I find myself hanging on Sent's words..because there is some hope there.

..and then wonder..are there these bases that can be shut down..how many troops are there..will the countries they are located in be willing to take over, why isn't anyone proposing that (military officials) ect..so if anyone happens to know where to direct me. That would be cool.

Three Great Kids..thanks for the input.

Other than that, I'm not addressing the bashing and baiting..

Mo

I don't tend to worry about things that are unwarranted, and there is nothing yet to lead me to believe this is one of them..
and enough to raise legitimate concern, certainly enough for respectful discussion and real input IMO.

It's kind of like taking the first five Ducks word on Lyme..asking questions turned out to be critical..as well as searching for answers.

Having children makes a difference in this as well, I suspect.

Mo

Wow, with your concern for my information exposure, and 24's concern for my health, I feel all warm and fuzzy...

Back to the topic, as I routinely look into stuff like this that concerns me beyond the regular keeping up ..
It's amazing how little there is on the topic.

I did find this in my travels, though, and it raises more questions.

If "they" are not reinstating the Draft anytime soon, why do "they" have it all worked out??

Next post below..a disturbing finding from the library of Congress website.

Not feeling too good about this.

Mo

This is the Republican plan, quoted directly from their proposed law: "To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act," which compels children as young as 17 to report their address and movements to the US Government.

The Press release:
http://www.house.gov/nicksmith/pr20129a.htm

And Congressman Smith's hard sell quoted from the release:

"America faces a unique moment in history: our nation is at war, our homeland was attacked, and our personal security is more at risk than it has probably ever been since World War II," said Smith. "Military training and experience prepares communities for potential challenges while encouraging community and national service. People should have some obligation to participate in defending and serving their country. This responsibility comes with the freedoms we all enjoy. The common experience of most people serving their county prior to 1973 had a very unifying effect."

Huh? Vietnam had a unifying effect??

The current war on terrorism could last for decades and having a nation of men and women across this country with an understanding of homeland security and international relations is important. The experience of training and working with those from all walks of life broadens one's perspective. Going through the discipline of a 'boot camp' environment with physical fitness and some hands-on vocational training would benefit many young men. The bill also would improve our nation's readiness in time of war or emergency."

"Other nations have instituted similar programs with great success. Today, more than 90 nations make young people subject to conscription. It's time America take a look at doing the same."

What's up with THIS?

Mo

He says that it will take an act of Congress to change the law that is in place to start a draft.

It would take over a year to do so.

Meanwhile, all heck would start everywhere and even IF they did start a draft, it would never go through.

I think I remembered that correctly - my memory is not the best.

Mo, you started out praising my explanation on my wanting to educate myself, of which I shared with others, because I was asked to defend my facts. I never questioned where you got your info, I was asked to justify mine, though. You wanted to know where I got my facts and I shared that with you. I shared with you why I felt compelled to go to these sites, and suggested you go to them too, since you questioned my validity in getting the facts. You wanted to know where I got my info and when I shared that with you, you insinuated that I forced this info on you. Then you accused me of treating you like you couldn't research on your own without going to my sites.I thought you were honestly interested in where I got my facts, but that sure doesn't seem to be your goal.
I guess it is time to bow out because some of you really aren't interested in hearing what others have to say unless it agrees with your views.
Take care-Lisa
PS- And no I am not angry, I am just shaking my head, thats all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
kclst,
Good advise as well. All things I practice on all fronts..medical and otherwise.. long before you came along
I was asking for any info to even sorta alleviate Draft concerns, thanks anyway.
Factcheck is interesting, they do seem to call out both "sides", but it's a little skimpy on info, and who are the "fact checkers?" -- maybe good to cross reference with other sources, but [b]certainly not alone.

Wow, with your concern for my information exposure, and 24's concern for my health, I feel all warm and fuzzy...

Back to the topic, as I routinely look into stuff like this that concerns me beyond the regular keeping up ..
It's amazing how little there is on the topic.

I did find this in my travels, though, and it raises more questions.

If "they" are not reinstating the Draft anytime soon, why do "they" have it all worked out??

Next post below..a disturbing finding from the library of Congress website.

Not feeling too good about this.

Mo

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 30 November 2004).][/B]

---

What I see on the this thread, are a few people simply being dismissive. Pure dismissiveness which is also extremely patronizing.