My offer still stands to say that we're lovers to get you out.
September 21, 2004 4:06 PM   Subscribe

Howard Dean speaks --on the coming draft. Any of you going to be 20 in 2005, and/or medical personnel? And girls, don't think you'll be exempt. (altho we know Jenna and Barbara of course will be.)
posted by amberglow (96 comments total)
 
Ooh, bloody revolution in the streets! What fun.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:12 PM on September 21, 2004


Hmm...op-ed from former Presidential candidate Howard Dean, former completely humiliated Howard Dean, who now does Comedy Central commercials. Not shooting the messenger, but the supporting facts/citations seem to be a bit thin to support a front page post, wouldn't you say?
posted by BlueTrain at 4:28 PM on September 21, 2004


Since 18 to 34 are the prime childbearing years, I doubt a draft on females would work. Any woman who wanted out of service could just get pregnant. While I understand there are women serving over in Iraq right now who have left 2 year-old children behind, I can't imagine our "family values" government would forcibly separate a woman from her newborn.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:29 PM on September 21, 2004


BlueTrain, this site is admittedly on the looney edge of left, but they claim to have an internal memo directly from the Selective Service authorizing a draft in 2005.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:33 PM on September 21, 2004


Sorry, I mean "the" internal memo, as in the one claimed by the Seattle newspaper.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:36 PM on September 21, 2004


I miss Howard Dean. Think of how badly a Dean/Edwards or Edwards/Dean ticket would be humiliating Bush in the polls right about now.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:36 PM on September 21, 2004


Hasn't it already been established that draft boards are staffing up? And hasn't it already been established that we don't have enough military people now? And hasn't it been established that current military people are not re-upping in the numbers needed? And hasn't it been established that stop-loss orders and threats are being used to keep current military people in?

Where do the extra military people needed come from if not a draft?

from PBS, 1/04: The U.S. Army has a third fewer soldiers than it did at the time it fought the 1991 Gulf War. Some military analysts are asking whether the Army is too small to support its long-term commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted by amberglow at 4:43 PM on September 21, 2004


If super-centrist Kerry can't take a decent lead, what makes you think that Dean, perceived as a "loony leftist", would fare any better.

Edwards or Clark, perhaps. In fact, if Clark were a better speaker, he'd rip Bush a new one regarding war and terrorism. Even Edwards, though, was too young and inexperienced to dethrone Bush. His speeches would have been great to listen to. Clinton he wasn't, but a respectable second.

Interesting find, XQUZYPHYR.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:43 PM on September 21, 2004


Think of how badly a Dean/Edwards or Edwards/Dean ticket would be humiliating Bush in the polls right about now.

Was that sarcasm or are you delusional?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 4:50 PM on September 21, 2004


So this Howard Dean... he screams?

Also, the ticket should have been Edwards/Kerry. No two ways about it.
posted by reklaw at 4:52 PM on September 21, 2004


Don't worry--it'll be Edwards/Obama in '12 : >

I can't believe people seriously think there won't be a draft--and i'm thrilled i'm too old for it, and a big fag.
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on September 21, 2004


Think of how badly a Dean/Edwards or Edwards/Dean ticket would be humiliating Bush in the polls right about now.

HAHAHHAHAHA!!!!
posted by Durwood at 4:54 PM on September 21, 2004


Since 18 to 34 are the prime childbearing years, I doubt a draft on females would work. Any woman who wanted out of service could just get pregnant.

.......and if they do get drafted, they can always get pregnant during the conflict.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:01 PM on September 21, 2004


I am not sure what to think. I feel a draft would be the hugest mistake any administration could make. Americans are not draftable like we used to be, there will be trouble if anyone is stupid enough to try.


Also a big thank/fuck you to President Carter for greasing the slope.
posted by thirteen at 5:13 PM on September 21, 2004


former completely humiliated Howard Dean, who now does Comedy Central commercials.
...
Was that sarcasm or are you delusional?
...
HAHAHHAHAHA!!!!


They're like train seals, aren't they? The blonde lady on the news says howard dean wasn't a good candidate, and so it must be true.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:17 PM on September 21, 2004


trained
posted by Space Coyote at 5:18 PM on September 21, 2004


> Think of how badly a Dean/Edwards or Edwards/Dean ticket would be
> humiliating Bush in the polls right about now.

Jeez, are the if-only-we-hadda postmortems starting already? Aren't these just a little premature? Well, if you guys think not, I guess they aren't. (Puts feet up, lights big cigar.)
posted by jfuller at 5:20 PM on September 21, 2004


how long is the jail sentence for refusal to enlist? i wouldnt mind pulling a Corso while in jail
posted by Satapher at 5:30 PM on September 21, 2004


The selective service topical agenda (pdf) that forms the basis of these reports makes it clear that this is a skills draft: "there are critical shortages of medical personnel, linguists, computer engineers, etc."(p. 3)

In other words, it's a draft of educated people. You know, Democrats and their families. It's not like the Bushies are going to draft their base, now is it?
posted by stonerose at 5:32 PM on September 21, 2004


We may need a draft to maintain the occupation, but I wonder if we aren't entering a post draft era. What about the don't ask, don't tell policy? What's to stop a recruit from showing up for duty with a doting gay-beard? Amberglow isn't alone. I'd do my part for a kiss on the cheek and a thank you from mom and dad. That doesn't work? Convert to fundamentalist Islam.

What about activists showing up to boot camp and "outing" all the gung-ho cadets?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:35 PM on September 21, 2004


Since 18 to 34 are the prime childbearing years, I doubt a draft on females would work. Any woman who wanted out of service could just get pregnant.

Well, males who do the impregnating do too. Fun Army Fact: did you know Mary Cheney, first-born daughter of Dick and Lynne, was born exactly nine months and two days after the army announced that married men with children would not be eligible for the draft? These are just one of many coincedences that brighten up the vivid history of the American Presidency.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:37 PM on September 21, 2004


gesamtkunstwerk, is that you taking one for the team? (NSFW)
posted by stonerose at 5:40 PM on September 21, 2004


They're like train seals, aren't they?

Or maybe it's true and a couple of diehard supporters won't let a dead horse rest in peace. If Dean was going to win, he would have won. Unfortunately the Democrats decided that electability was more important than perceived fanaticism. I wonder if Democrats will remember in November why they let Kerry win the primary, should he lose the general election...or perhaps the standby excuse, "Karl Rove won again" will be floated to spare their egos.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:47 PM on September 21, 2004


College students all over the country are registering in greater numbers than ever before and seriously talking about the draft. Kerry won't lose.
posted by amberglow at 6:05 PM on September 21, 2004


The point about having a draft is *not* having one or not. It is *why* you have one. My point being that, most likely, a draft would come about through *additional* wars: Iran, Syria, and/or North Korea.
Without such a scenario, I think it highly unlikely there will be a draft. But in such an eventuality...
posted by kablam at 6:17 PM on September 21, 2004


kablam, do you think that Bush would implement a selective, limited, "skills" draft if, as the document suggests, the military is short on certain skilled professionals?
posted by stonerose at 6:23 PM on September 21, 2004


ach, if there's a draft they can come get me, I'd make great cannon fodder.
posted by jonmc at 6:23 PM on September 21, 2004


You're too old, jon--but you can join my crusade to get people out of it--why should rich kids get all the breaks?
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on September 21, 2004


Stonerose quoted, "...computer engineers."

Great. First the job market dries up about a year before I graduate, now they're gonna draft me?
posted by Eamon at 6:29 PM on September 21, 2004


Dean will still have my vote in Novemeber.

I'll be damned if I rubber-stamp the DNC's choice from day-1. Say what you will, but Dean would never have sat passively on his landed-gentry ass while monkey-boy continually danced a buck-n-wing on his poll numbers.
posted by RavinDave at 6:29 PM on September 21, 2004


This might be a great political move. By talking about how the draft could become necessary if Bush is re-elected, Dean could nudge some voters to Kerry. At the very least (and this is what makes it such a good move), Bush might be forced to say on record that there will be no draft.
posted by drezdn at 6:33 PM on September 21, 2004


Hell, amberglow, I don't care. Might as well go out fighting. If it does happen I can see the mefi thread, some would say hero, others chump, others hired killer and you'd all be wrong.
posted by jonmc at 6:40 PM on September 21, 2004


i have fish in my pants.
posted by quonsar at 6:41 PM on September 21, 2004


some would say hero, others chump, others hired killer and you'd all be wrong.</i?

boring-wannabe-romantic-nihilist-contrarian-enigma?

where's my prize?


posted by stonerose at 6:46 PM on September 21, 2004


Agree that a draft seems likely -- everyone agrees there aren't enough troops. Our current situtation can't be maintained by an all-volunteer armed forces enduring a "back door draft" indefinately. "More boots on the ground" are going to be coming from somewhere.
posted by jca at 6:47 PM on September 21, 2004


where's my prize?

Up your ass. Next to the steel rod.
posted by jonmc at 6:48 PM on September 21, 2004


Draft? No prob.

Bush Sr. still owes me beaucoup gambling dollars (he of the terrible poker jones...and the statistical acumen of an abacus).

If I forgive his debt I figure he can get all my friends into the Texas Air National Guard and away from the front lines, just like he did for Junior Naval Aviator Lt. AWOL.

Draft. Maybe we could make it retroactive, eh? I mean, to give those who really think war is just a wonderful noble cause, but who somehow must have been forcibly, violently prevented from fulfilling their draft requirements or enlistment opportunities when they were younger, um, hawks.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:49 PM on September 21, 2004


Up your ass. Next to the steel rod.

Throw another Brer Rabbit into the briar patch, jon.
posted by stonerose at 7:06 PM on September 21, 2004


You're the one who presumed to know my mind, stonerose.

If the worlds gonna go out in a blaze of fire, just strap me to the nosecone of the missile.

As some wise men once said: Ain't it fun when you know you're gonna die young....
posted by jonmc at 7:09 PM on September 21, 2004


Say - isn't there already a draft draft bill?
posted by swerdloff at 7:16 PM on September 21, 2004


"Ain't it fun when you know you're gonna die young...."???

Which wise men? Did they die young, or did they have time to reflect on it? Just asking, because it really doesn't sound fun to me.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:23 PM on September 21, 2004


Rocket From The Tombs. And at least one of them died young. And believe it or not, when I was younger, I would've rejected this world view, but the older I get and the more of the world and it's inhabitatnts I deal with, the more it makes sense.
posted by jonmc at 7:30 PM on September 21, 2004


i have fish in my pants.
See? quonsar has already signed up to help keep our young out of the draft! : >

I have faith in President Kerry, but I think if Bush gets another term, it's definitely going to happen--they're already talking about Iran and Syria (you've seen the trial balloons floated here too, by kablam and others) It's just not possible to open other fronts in this war on Terra™ without many thousands of more soldiers, and many say not possible to stay in Iraq without many more too. Just one more of many reasons to vote Kerry. (and Ravin: vote like Dean is--for Kerry/Edwards.)
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2004


I can't imagine our "family values" government would forcibly separate a woman from her newborn.

Clearly they aren't too worried about letting the young sons of servicemen and even guardsmen go without fathers for a while -- in some cases permanently -- so I don't think it's that much of a consideration.
posted by clevershark at 7:35 PM on September 21, 2004


A draft combined with a trigger-happy cowboy administration a la Bush equals a hell of a lot less Republican votes in the long run.

You Republicans can laugh I suppose. I hope you will remember what a good time you're having when they come to draft you, or your sons, or your grandsons to die in a war that serves no purpose.
posted by clevershark at 7:39 PM on September 21, 2004


You Republicans can laugh I suppose.

Yes, all 5 or 6 republicans on MeFi are very nervous after your courageous comment.
posted by jonmc at 7:44 PM on September 21, 2004


they should be nervous--i won't vouch for them. : p
posted by amberglow at 8:13 PM on September 21, 2004


Sometimes I'm inclined to give the MeFi conservatives more credit than the MeFi liberal "me too" brigade. At least they have the balls to state their opinions in an openly unfreindly forum.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 PM on September 21, 2004


Sometimes I'm inclined to give the MeFi conservatives more credit than the MeFi liberal "me too" brigade. At least they have the balls to state their opinions in an openly unfreindly forum.

They just can't, or don't, support them with evidence and logic.

There's more to having balls than hanging around where you aren't wanted and taunting your opponents with cherry-picked information.
posted by Epenthesis at 8:32 PM on September 21, 2004


That's beside the point, epenthesis. Posted any of your opinions at Freep? Little Green Footballs?

It dosen't take much courage to post your opinions in a forum where you know you'll be surrounded by like-minded people.
posted by jonmc at 8:38 PM on September 21, 2004


I'm going to be 20, this coming January. The mere idea of entering official numeric adulthood, no longer being a "teen", is pants-soilingly scary enough.

And then there's this to worry about, now. I guess I'd want to have someone with some sort of historical/political education (i.e., someone like me) performing "diplomatic" military operations in a foreign country than a shoot'em-up-real-goodlike-and-Jaysus'll-sort-'em-out jarhead.

While I was mulling over my response, thinking about what being drafted might be like, I realized a huge personal caveat. I have horrible uncorrected vision (-4.5 diopter). The potential that I may be considered 4-F is little consolation.

Do any of you have a tablesaw with a blade that can be sterilized?
posted by LimePi at 8:41 PM on September 21, 2004


no need to amputate, LimePi--this is something voting, and spreading the word, can help with.
posted by amberglow at 8:43 PM on September 21, 2004


amberglow: I wouldn't call what I suggest might be coming down the road "trial balloons". For many in the US, the Pacific War with Japan was seen as just a matter of time, too. This didn't mean they wanted it, just that they were resigned to the possibility, which proved correct.

On almost a daily basis, an educated person could say that the possibility of the US having a war with Iran, Syria, or North Korea has a "greater chance" or "lesser chance". They are very often in the news, and are clearly the biggest candidates for hostilities, if hostilities do in fact occur.

Ironically, they and the US are not the only players in this scenario. For example, China might go to war with North Korea, only indirectly at the behest of the US, because the North's desire to have nuclear weapons puts pressure on South Korea *and* Japan *and* Taiwan to have them, something that the Chinese would really, truly prefer not happen. If the Chinese tell the Norks to cut it out, and they refuse, then the Chinese might be inclined to force them to stop, militarily.

If China invades North Korea and replaces their government with a puppet government, the odds of the US going to war with them drop to very low.

If Israel decides it cannot tolerate Iran's nuclear development any more, it might make a strike against them, after which the US, in Iraq, just refuses to let the Iranians strike back. There is a good chance the Iranians would not be willing to get into a war with the US to counterattack Israel. So for a time, that too would reduce the chance of a war between the US and Iran.

Right now, Syria is faced with a UNSC resolution to remove its 20,000 soldiers from Lebanon. It has directed 1,000 to pack their bags, and projected another 9,000 doing so in the near future. This would alleviate a LOT of tension between them and the US.

Things change. One day "greater chance", the next, "lesser chance." Not "trial balloons", but just possibilities.
posted by kablam at 8:47 PM on September 21, 2004


Do any of you have a tablesaw with a blade that can be sterilized?

Not to worry, LimePi, Canada's just across the border.

Canada did very well out of the draft the last time-- hundreds, nay, thousands, of recent college graduates headed North, studying here, starting businesses, settling down, teaching in Canadian Universities....
posted by jokeefe at 9:15 PM on September 21, 2004


I work in an academic department filled with computer scientists who occasionally wear linguist hats (and vice versa) and most of us feel like this draft is aimed squarely at us. Although I can't speak for everyone, a good portion of us are horrified by the idea of getting drafted. However, you can bet that if the salary was good and our academic aspirations were sufficiently crushed, then it wouldn't be too hard to hire most of us.

We are computer nerds who probably won't survive boot camp, but you could probably get all you need by hiring the lot of us and keeping us in an office building somewhere. So, maybe instead of a draft, they could offer benefits packages and PTO. Everybody wins.
posted by Alison at 9:19 PM on September 21, 2004


note: amputation stuff is a reference to "A Prayer for Owen Meany"
posted by LimePi at 9:31 PM on September 21, 2004


jonmc: Shtick. Old.
posted by jon_kill at 9:41 PM on September 21, 2004


whata ya know, they are going to restart the draft:

HR 163: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B.

Cosponsors: Rep Abercrombie, Neil
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]

Aren't all these guys Democrats?
posted by scottst at 9:54 PM on September 21, 2004




the draft ready climate may have faded as our generations grew up - when the primary threat was mutually assured nuclear destruction - but it's hard for comparatively old farts [especially non-Americans, like me] to be sure of the deepest instincts, mindsets, expectations of Americans half our age or less in 2001.

kids 14 and under when the shit first hit the fan might be suprisingly well prepared for drafts in 2005/2006.. deep down they may even already consider being sent overseas in their lifetimes likely/inevitable.

a really serious attack in America designed to provoke that & send the world in a deeper spin could mean a nation of draft age kids who've only ever known the 'war on terror' era being willing to fight anywhere, do anything, for their flag.
posted by Kino at 10:06 PM on September 21, 2004


Yes, the only draft bills on the record are sponsored entirely by Democrats and will never even be voted on, let alone passed into law. The last thing the military wants to do is waste time, money, and resources trying to train a bunch of pussified whiny liberal kids how to aim and shoot a fucking weapon. Don't take my word for it, go down to your local recruiting office and tell them you're ready to go. You won't be lonesome, but you won't be going anywhere for awhile. They've got so many volunteers they can't process them fast enough. You'll be turned away for flat feet or the like, as they only want healthy men who are physically and mentally strong and are likely to successfully complete training. Otherwise, it's a big waste of time and money, on their dime. Assuming you can pass the tests and the physicals, you can't even get a ship date to basic within the same year you sign the contract. You're safe, ladies, don't cry yourselves to sleep at night.

The Democratic sponsors of the draft bill know damn well that you're young and dumb and scared to death of Uncle Sam, so they press your buttons in an election year. amberglow knows the same thing, hence the latest and greatest FPP about the scaaary looming draft. What is this, amberglow, your fourth or fifth "coming draft" FPP since the primaries? Shame on you, big gay lou, shame on you.
posted by David Dark at 11:04 PM on September 21, 2004


I've been expecting a skills-based draft since the military came into one of my linguistics classes at university and gave a recruitment speech.
posted by emmling at 11:48 PM on September 21, 2004


I have nothing to contribute to this thread.
posted by Octaviuz at 1:01 AM on September 22, 2004


Aren't all these guys Democrats?

Screwed over by the opppsition, who do the bidding of your government, who want to send young Americans to fullfill their foreign policy objectives. Americans, your country blows. I really pity you all.
posted by tomcosgrave at 4:22 AM on September 22, 2004


They've got so many volunteers they can't process them fast enough.
Prove it. Links with statistics, or stop talking out of your ass. And, When are you volunteering, David?

And guess what? Us Democrats aren't the ones that have been doing the scaring for the past 4 years. Some of us actually remember growing up during the last endless war, and will not let another generation of young Americans become cannon fodder.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 AM on September 22, 2004


And your slurs are offensive and tiresome, David. If you think they contribute to a discussion, you're woefully mistaken, and not helping yourself.
posted by amberglow at 4:47 AM on September 22, 2004


> It dosen't take much courage to post your opinions in a forum where
> you know you'll be surrounded by like-minded people.

Hush, jon, Karl Rove has worked very hard to trick them into only talking to each other, so nobody outside the cocoon ever hears them. And it's working like a charm. Don't waste all Karl's effort, loose lipe sink ships.
posted by jfuller at 5:03 AM on September 22, 2004


Without such a scenario, I think it highly unlikely there will be a draft. But in such an eventuality..

How about this then:

Taxpayers are upset over graft WRT Kellog Brown and Root and therefore want cheaper Cooks/Janitors/logistics. What cheaper way than to draft these people?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:19 AM on September 22, 2004


Sometimes I'm inclined to give the MeFi conservatives more credit than the MeFi liberal "me too" brigade. At least they have the balls to state their opinions in an openly unfreindly forum.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 PM PST on September 21


Yet when challenged to produce facts, most of them slink back into their spider holes to snipe another day.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:30 AM on September 22, 2004


Obligatory snopes link

"It will take 193 days from the time that we get started until the first person is presented to the Department of Defense," said Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service. It would then take a year and a half to two years to train the draftees and form them into new combat units, Krepinovich said.

Even if the draft started up again, it might be of a much more limited nature than in previous years, with only those who could fill specialized positions in certain fields (e.g., health care, linguistics, computer technology) being conscripted."

Let's just not get excited, mmkay? Fun as it is...
posted by glenwood at 5:59 AM on September 22, 2004


Here's a conservative who would like to point out something no one else has: Ironically enough, the military establishment would prefer that there weren't a draft. Here's why.

Consider how the US got to the all-volunteer military in the first place. Most military occupations require a fair bit of investment in training resources and presuppose the entirely willing (if not necessarily gung-ho) personnel they get in an all-volunteer* force. Consider the humble "dumb grunt cannon fodder" infantry: You don't get a skilled, trained infantryman without several months of basic training followed by more months advanced infantry training and an exercise or two, wars aside. Other military roles (armor, communications, aviation, artillery) require a lot of hardware infrastructure, training and practice to build the required skills and knowledge for a capable force. As the argument goes, it's difficult enough to recruit, train, and retain an all-volunteer force (unpopular wars aside). Add to this difficulty the problem of training and trying to keep trained personnel who didn't want to be there in the first place -- who had to be drafted -- and the issues of resources and motivation become unacceptably difficult.

--------------------------------------------------------------
*leaving aside any discussion of why they volunteered in the first place, what wiles the recruiter applied, and how bleak (fast food, Wal-Mart, unemployment) their alternatives may have been
posted by alumshubby at 5:59 AM on September 22, 2004


The administration hasn't listened to the military at all during the first term--what makes anyone think they'd listen during another term? Didn't they even fire the generals that called for a larger force?
posted by amberglow at 6:02 AM on September 22, 2004


jonmc: Shtick. Old.

When you're through criticizing my personality, call me, then maybe you can actually discuss content.

I attacked you in that thread about photos and since then you've attached yourself to my ass. Get over it.
posted by jonmc at 6:27 AM on September 22, 2004


...Don't take my word for it. They've got so many volunteers they can't process them fast enough.
Don't worry. I won't. Show me evidence that this is the case. Is it too much effort to google for your data?
...You're safe, ladies, don't cry yourselves to sleep at night... The Democratic sponsors of the draft bill know damn well that you're young and dumb and scared to death of Uncle Sam...Shame on you, big gay lou, shame on you...
A big load of pointless crap that acheives nothing. Well done you big brave man. I'll cheer you on when you join the military and serve your country you knobjockey. In the meantime tuck yourself into bed at night and fantasise about the muscular Randian ubermensch (who actually don't exist in most armed forces of the world!) who protect your right to be a dildo.
posted by longbaugh at 6:39 AM on September 22, 2004


scottst raises an important question: Whassup with Rangel wanting to reinstate the draft? From a CNN article I found online:

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

Do those seem like legitimate motivations for solving what is supposed to be an issue of having enough personnel?
posted by alumshubby at 6:40 AM on September 22, 2004


They've got so many volunteers they can't process them fast enough.

My sister-in-law is a recruiter for the army, and she will tell you how very ignorant you are. She gets bonuses for meeting and exceeding her monthly recruitment quotas. After 9/11 she couldn't process the volunteers fast enough. In the last year, she hasn't received a single bonus (read: she ain't making her quotas anymore, and it's not for lack of trying).
posted by archimago at 6:49 AM on September 22, 2004


jon_kill: Attached to your ass? One comment does not an ass-attachment make.
posted by jon_kill at 8:46 AM on September 22, 2004


Any woman who wanted out of service could just get pregnant.
Time to 'plead the belly', I see ...
posted by kaemaril at 10:33 AM on September 22, 2004


Metafilter: One comment does not an ass-attachment make.

Yeah, I know. Shtick. Old.
posted by gazingus at 10:48 AM on September 22, 2004


This is nothing more than scare tactics from the DNC, and all you chicken littles are either too stupid to figure it out or willing to do anything to make sure your side wins.

Kerry's internal poll numbers must be even worse than what we all think they are.
posted by Mick at 6:33 PM on September 22, 2004


as opposed to the repub scare tactics used to invade Iraq in the first place, Mick?
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on September 22, 2004


as opposed to the repub scare tactics used to invade Iraq in the first place, Mick?

And here we have an example of "If you can't argue the point change the subject" school of debate.
posted by Mick at 6:53 PM on September 22, 2004


I think there's scare tactics that get thousands killed and cost us billions, and there's scare tactics that are based on fact, like the draft thing is. There's a gigantic difference. Only someone willfully ignoring the present situation, and the stated aims of this administration, would ignore the signs.
posted by amberglow at 7:25 PM on September 22, 2004


THE FUCKING THING IS SPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS, AMBERGLOW.
posted by David Dark at 9:48 PM on September 22, 2004


THE FUCKING THING IS SPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS...
and has been discussed multiple times on MeFi with the general consensus that it was brought to the table by the Democrats as a preventative measure to ensure that should a draft ever take place that certain people* will not be able to shrug out of their duty and send the poor sons of Uncle Sam to their early graves.

'Representative Charles Rangel of New York, a Korean War veteran, said at a news conference that military responsibility "should be shared by all Americans" if the United States becomes involved in an all-out war. Rangel said he was concerned that "the burden of military service was being borne disproportionately by members of disadvantaged groups." According to Defense Department data, both active and reserve recruits in the US military are primarily from middle and lower income families'

Seriously DD, when you finish ejaculating in your GI Joe pajamas you might want to consider reading some of the links that people post about the topic or even *gasp* researching it yourself.

*rich children of political representatives for one.
posted by longbaugh at 12:35 AM on September 23, 2004




That's one big flaming strawman right there...
posted by PenDevil at 6:50 AM on September 23, 2004


It's a desperate move by a desperate candidate.

Yesterday the Kerry Campaign canceled $5 million worth of ads in 5 "swing states" because the determined that there is no way they can win them. The strategy now seems to be to retrench in key states so Dems don't lose seats and have a chance in 2008

Look on the bright side: all of you who thought the election would be close and felt they had to vote for Kerry so it wasn't a repeat of 2000 can relax and vote for Nader now.
posted by Mick at 7:35 AM on September 23, 2004


You'll have to prove that, Mick. Show us proof the election won't be close The electorate has been more or less evenly divided all along. Show us otherwise, or keep talking out of your ass.


"I guess their daddies didn't know the right people..."
posted by amberglow at 5:32 PM on September 23, 2004


Actually, Dean is speaking up to make Kerry look competent, by comparison. C'est L'eau du Deséspoir...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:39 PM on September 23, 2004


and has been discussed multiple times on MeFi with the general consensus that it was brought to the table by the Democrats as a preventative measure to ensure that should a draft ever take place that certain people* will not be able to shrug out of their duty and send the poor sons of Uncle Sam to their early graves.

I suggest you rethink, then reword this paragraph. It makes no sense. You've completely misunderstood the quote and mangled common sense so badly that you've rendered your own comment meaningless.
posted by David Dark at 7:07 PM on September 23, 2004


I suggest you go back to school. Perhaps hanging out with some children in a reading comprehension class might assist you with your obvious difficulty in understanding the written word.

You want to know why people label you a troll? It's because you state things without evidence and run when you arguments are shot down in flames. If you really do have difficulty comprehending what I wrote the first time then quite honestly it's your failing - not mine.

Because I really do pity you I will summarise.

1: Democrats introduce draft bill to make sure that rich kids get sent to war along with all the poor kids.
2: MeFi discusses this over the course of several threads and comes to the conclusion that this bill makes sense and is quite fair.
3: You misunderstand quite on purpose.
4: Everyone points and laughs at you.

Is that any easier?
posted by longbaugh at 3:24 AM on September 24, 2004


You'll have to prove that, Mick. Show us proof the election won't be close The electorate has been more or less evenly divided all along. Show us otherwise, or keep talking out of your ass.

Maybe you should consider holding your own front page posts to the same standards?

More prove that this election is lost and Kerry is just trying to save the down-ticket can be seen in his treatment of Allawi's speech in front of congress yesterday. You do not piss on a visiting leader of a country you might have to work with if you are elected and you do not offer moral support to the terrorists by telling them their efforts to halt the January elections are succeeding .

Another interesting observation that any sane person would take as more evidence of the towel being thrown in is how the Kerry campaign is using it's limited resources, it particular John Edwards. Yesterday he was in SC and he said that Kerry had no chance to win the state. So why was he there, to help a candidate for senate.

If the VP candidate is wasting his time in a state Kerry can't win then you can only assume they've given up the fight.
posted by Mick at 6:30 AM on September 24, 2004


Let's focus on this excerpt:

...that it was brought to the table by the Democrats as a preventative measure to ensure that should a draft ever take place that [rich children, esp. of political representatives] will not be able to shrug out of their duty and send the poor sons of Uncle Sam to their early graves.


"This draft bill was written in case there's ever a draft in the future, the rich kids won't be able to get out of it." That makes sense to you, eh? That means this is going to be challenging. Let's keep this simple.

There can be no draft without a draft bill, so a draft bill can not be construed as a preventative measure to the consequences of a draft. I think what you're trying to say is what Rep. Rangel said, which would be properly worded "...that it was brought to the table by the Democrats as a preventative measure to ensure that should a draft ever take place that [rich children, esp. of political representatives] will not be able to shrug out of their duty..." By throwing in the extra clauses, you turned the entire sentence into gibberish. What you erroneously state instead is that if a draft ever happened, it would require only poor children, and not rich children, to go to war; therefore, this bill is designed to draft the rich kids as well. As written, your comment makes no sense.

1: Democrats introduce draft bill to make sure that rich kids get sent to war along with all the poor kids.

Aside from being a dishonest interpretation, this is utter naivete. Yes, the draft is universal, and does not distinguish between classes. Rich or poor, everyone would be drafted, but in reality the richest of those would be the ones with the means available to get out of it. All this bill would accomplish would be increasing the size of the troop force, which was never the intention of those who sponsored it. It was introduced before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, and the reasoning behind the bill, as stated by its sponsor, Rep. Rangel, had absolutely nothing to do with a necessity for a larger military force. It had everything to do with Mr. Rangel's opinion that military service "should be shared by all Americans." He's entitled to his opinion like anybody else, but even a Congressman can't make his opinion law without the support of his colleagues and the signature of the President, which he will never, nor did he ever intend to, actually receive. Regardless, if by some chance it ever did come to fruition, the bulk of the draftees would be children from poor families, anyway. So it wouldn't even accomplish what Rangel sought to achieve.

2: MeFi discusses this over the course of several threads and comes to the conclusion that this bill makes sense and is quite fair.

Hmm. That's interesting. Yes, this has been discussed before, and here are links to both bills and another, similar explanation from a cosponsor, Rep. Peter Stark (D), posted by a user who apparently researched this topic back on June 1, in one of those other discussions you claim to be so fond of.

What I'd like to know is where is this general consensus you're referring to? Where are you reading comments from users who think that this bill "makes sense and is quite fair?" I know you have no vested interest in this issue, of course, being non-American and supporting a draft of American citizens makes sense enough, I suppose. But who are the Americans on this site who support a universal draft? longbaugh inexplicably thinks the majority supports a draft. Does anyone support a draft?

Finally, we've hit upon someone who is unarguably talking out of his ass. Thanks, longbaugh, you are good for something.
posted by David Dark at 1:28 AM on September 25, 2004


You stated in the previous thread that the bill can be seen as a "threat" and that is a great observation. That is exactly what it is. Both the quote you linked to previously and the quote I have used above illustrate the purpose of the bill.

Don't let rich kids dodge the draft.

And I fully agree with that. I think you'll find very few people on this planet believe that the rich kids should get away with not serving if everyone has to. That is a simple truth.

As for this -
"I know you have no vested interest in this issue, of course, being non-American and supporting a draft of American citizens makes sense enough, I suppose."

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it that you mean that as a non-American I think the youth of your country should be thrown into a war in my place? Well I have been in the Army and I seem to recall you haven't served so forgive me if I ignore that stupid barb.
Incidentally - most of my friends are of draft age and live in America. I am also married to an American who is of draft age. There is my vested interest.
posted by longbaugh at 5:30 AM on September 25, 2004


The Draft is Not a Republican vs. Democrat Issue--a TalkLeft roundup on all this.
posted by amberglow at 11:50 AM on September 25, 2004


« Older Ich fühle wie Tron   |   For those of you in the 'Anyone but Bush' camp. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments