TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Possibility for a draft?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Possibility for a draft?
Found a better article.
| quote: |
| Bush seeks a larger military A bigger military is needed for a long war on terrorism, he says. By James Gerstenzang and Noam N. Levey Times Staff Writers December 20, 2006 WASHINGTON � With generals warning that long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the Army to a breaking point, President Bush is asking for plans to expand the military for a long war against terrorism, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The growth would reverse the course pursued by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who six years ago set out to restructure the nation's military forces and advocated cutting two divisions, or about 40,000 soldiers, from the Army. Bush asked Robert M. Gates, who replaced Rumsfeld as Defense secretary Monday, to prepare plans for a more muscular military, with the idea of incorporating the expansion in the 2008 budget request that the administration plans to send to Congress in early February. The president did not set specific troop numbers or costs for the expansion, said the official, who requested anonymity when discussing administration planning. Countering any talk that a beefed-up force would necessitate a draft, Army officials have said they believe at least an extra 20,000 soldiers a year could be recruited through pay incentives. "The president is inclined to believe we need to increase the overall size of the Army and the Marines," said the official, adding that "how big and how soon" would be up to Gates. "The genesis is his long-held belief the global war on terror is going to be a long one and we're going to need a military capable of sustaining our effort to keep the country safe." The president revealed his plans for the military in an interview Tuesday with the Washington Post. "I want to share one thought I had with you, and I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines," Bush said in an opening statement. The newspaper posted a partial transcript of the president's comments on its website Tuesday afternoon. The president's order that Gates consider increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps occurs as Bush and his national security team are in the throes of preparing a new approach to the war in Iraq. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Tuesday that one of the courses Bush was considering is a "surge" in troops there. The temporary boost could last several months, with the additional numbers coming from an extension of current deployments and an early deployment of troops scheduled to serve there, putting further stress on the military. About 140,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The surge could increase that total by 30,000, with troops sent to Baghdad and other hotspots of insurgent and sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Snow has said Bush will disclose his Iraq plans early next year. The president said he was waiting to hear Gates' recommendations after the Defense secretary visits Iraq. "Gates wanted to get there and kick the tires, so to speak, before he made a recommendation to the president," said the senior administration official. Advocates of sending more troops to Iraq have said that such a strategy must be paired with an overall increase in the Army and Marine Corps. Adding more soldiers in Iraq next spring and summer would reduce the troops available in 2008 and 2009. But expanding the size of the military would allow newly created units to take the place of the additional units sent to Iraq in 2007 and would allow the military to maintain its force levels over the longer term. On Thursday, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, called for an increase in the size of the Army. Without expanding the active-duty military or relaxing restrictions on calling up reserves, Schoomaker said, the Army would have difficulty continuing its current overseas deployments. Congress has allowed the Army to temporarily grow by 30,000 soldiers beyond its active-duty cap of 482,000. It is about 5,000 troops short of that goal. Army officials want the temporary increase to be permanent, and many favor a still larger increase. Schoomaker said that the Army could accommodate an annual increase of up to 7,000 troops. Military experts have said that increasing the size of the Marine Corps, which has had fewer recruiting problems than the Army, would be easier than expanding the Army. Gen. James Conway, the Marines' new commandant, favors increasing the force, currently at 181,000. Officials say an increase of up to 5,000 is being considered. The prospect of a temporary boost in the U.S. military force in Iraq drew sharp criticism Tuesday from the Democrats who will become chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees. "More troops would get us in deeper and is a military response to a political problem," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said: "I don't know what the military mission would be�. Is there something to go after that we don't know? I don't think it will change a thing." Skelton, a longtime supporter of the military who is now calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said a boost in troops there could be counterproductive. "It could exacerbate the situation further," he said. He added: "The time for a troop increase, larger troop increase, was about 3 1/2 years ago, when we initially went into Iraq�. If we had done that, I don't think we would be in the situation we are today." Although sentiment in Congress and the public has been growing for months for a drawdown of troops, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.), several other members of Congress and former soldiers have embraced the idea of increasing the troop numbers in Iraq. Suggesting a split among some Democrats, however, Harry Reid of Nevada, who is about to become the Senate majority leader, expressed some support for the idea. "If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," Reid said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Other senior Senate Democrats, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Jack Reed of Rhode Island have criticized the proposal. |
Then you know nothing about the military if you think
a draft is the only way to increase troops.
We meet our recruiting goals ok, those goals are for
the amount of troops we can fund. He will ask for more
funding so even more people may join up and the recruiting
goals set alittle higher.
He will fund extra battalions and such. That's all it means.
The Pentagon has said over and over and over and over they
do NOT want draftees. They want volunteers, volunteer
professional soldiers are better than conscripts or draftees.
Also neither the Republicans or Democrats would support a
draft. The only politican who does is Democrat Randall...
It would not be popular and our people would not support
such a move. This isn't freaking World War 3 and we're
so embroiled in a huge war.
We have about 10% in combat conditions and we are positioned
to fight two huge huge wars against major powers and a half,
like a peacekeeping mission and win them all.
I hate how people think we couldn't take another front in
the war or need draftees, they have no idea of our capabilities.
Since it seems that the almighty american military is getting beaten by people using sticks and stones that should give you an idea why a person might have doubts about your capabilities.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Moongoose Since it seems that the almighty american military is getting beaten by people using sticks and stones that should give you an idea why a person might have doubts about your capabilities. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail Are you being serious? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Then you know nothing about the military if you think a draft is the only way to increase troops. We meet our recruiting goals ok, those goals are for the amount of troops we can fund. He will ask for more funding so even more people may join up and the recruiting goals set alittle higher. He will fund extra battalions and such. That's all it means. The Pentagon has said over and over and over and over they do NOT want draftees. They want volunteers, volunteer professional soldiers are better than conscripts or draftees. Also neither the Republicans or Democrats would support a draft. The only politican who does is Democrat Randall... It would not be popular and our people would not support such a move. This isn't freaking World War 3 and we're so embroiled in a huge war. We have about 10% in combat conditions and we are positioned to fight two huge huge wars against major powers and a half, like a peacekeeping mission and win them all. I hate how people think we couldn't take another front in the war or need draftees, they have no idea of our capabilities. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller Fawking hell, you are seriously brainwashed pal. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Yes because you're an expert on the American Armed Forces aren't you? lol Also to the one who says we're getting messed up, we have a policy where we don't announce figures of dead insurgents. For everyone they kill of us, we kill a dozen of them at least. From real soldiers/Marines out there in the field, they're gung-ho and know we're kicking ass, it's the media that focuses on reporting dead americans. They show no progress, no development of Iraqi services, nothing positive ever. They don't report on the daily raids and arrests carried out everyday. Or the civilians reporting and giving us great intel these days. They don't like the scumbags killing them and are helping us and their own security forces get them. But keep only listening to the biased media, just spare us with your BS about us getting creamed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I find it hard to believe that the media is intentionally withholding positive progress in Iraq. |
Latest opinion by the politicians is that 'theyre not winning, but theyre not losing either'
Which how see it, theyre not saying anything at all really.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono At this point in time, Americans (and most of the world) will watch and get excited over Americans being killed or American defeats much more than American victories or insurgent deaths. |
In all honesty, you've been sold a bridge if you think there will be some 'decisive' victory over anything, it's like playing whack a mole blindfolded. You squash some there, they'll pop up somewhere else and keep doing it, it's not like WW2 where there was battle lines, uniforms, public leaders and a general modus operandi for the enemy.
GWB Mark 2 has sold you into a war which wont end once the US pulls out of Iraq, if anything he's thrown a large tankers worth of fuel on what was a spark and it'll keep burning for many, many years to come.
It's how the middle east works.
Course, no one really seemed to think about looking into this properly before they went in and hence, the problem that is there now.
People have fueds between families for generations and if you think a few are going to forget how they ended up being shafted by the US you'd be terribly mistaken. At a personal level its basically what Iraq is going through now, once Saddam's boot got taken off their necks they where free to just run off and continue old feuds, religious sectarian violence and personal vendettas without being reprimanded.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 That's speculation, it'd be just as easy to say the reverse. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I find it hard to believe that the media is intentionally withholding positive progress in Iraq. |
That gosh darn librul media, always makin' our dear leader look bad. Why does the media hate Bush?
Why does the media hate America?
Don't they know "freedom is not free"? Don't they know that Rummy and the boys sent our brave fighters over there to protect us over here?
Geez, I just can't take it anymore! I'm sick to death of this dang librulism just being so negative!
Don't you guys have ANYTHING positive to say about our situation there?
How 'bout them schools being built? Yes?
| quote: |
| Iraq's schools, long touted by American officials as a success story in a land short on successes, increasingly are being caught in the crossfire of the country's escalating civil war. President Bush has routinely talked about the refurbishment and construction of schools as a neglected story of progress in Iraq. The U.S. Agency for International Development has spent about $100 million on Iraq's education system and cites the rehabilitation of 2,962 school buildings as a signal accomplishment. But today, across the country, campuses are being shuttered, students and teachers driven from their classrooms and parents left to worry that a generation of traumatized children will go without education. Teachers tell of students kidnapped on their way to school, mortar rounds landing on or near campuses and educators shot in front of children. This month insurgents distributed pamphlets at campuses, some sealed inside an envelope with an AK-47 bullet. ...No credible current national school attendance statistics exist in Iraq, whose education system was once considered a model in the Arab world. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines |
Great post Opus.
I didn't say a thing about political bias in the media. That goes both ways, if any way.
What I'm stating is that media outlets make more money by reporting the "dark" side of news events. There are a lot of good things that are noteworthy that happen each day both at home and even in *gasp* Iraq, we simply don't hear of them. Whether it's your local news or even the multinational news giants, they all know the same thing; death, destruction, misery and conflict gets peoples' attention.
We watch the news, the news channels want more viewers, so they report what gets our attention. They report all the death and destruction they can handle. Therefore, no matter what your political slant, you do tend to get more of the negative side of things then the positive. I don't think there is any political conspiracy when it comes to the reporting of the news. I do think that the dollar speaks louder than the hope of even-balanced news reporting.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Damn librul media! Next thing you know they'll be attacking those durn Christians and Christmas! Well I won't let 'em! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono I didn't say a thing about political bias in the media. That goes both ways, if any way. What I'm stating is that media outlets make more money by reporting the "dark" side of news events. There are a lot of good things that are noteworthy that happen each day both at home and even in *gasp* Iraq, we simply don't hear of them. Whether it's your local news or even the multinational news giants, they all know the same thing; death, destruction, misery and conflict gets peoples' attention. We watch the news, the news channels want more viewers, so they report what gets our attention. They report all the death and destruction they can handle. Therefore, no matter what your political slant, you do tend to get more of the negative side of things then the positive. I don't think there is any political conspiracy when it comes to the reporting of the news. I do think that the dollar speaks louder than the hope of even-balanced news reporting. |
Look on the bright side, tommorrow some advisor will blow in the presidents ear and the windchimes in there will babble out something in broken english which roughly translates as being 'We're winning again!'
(I swear, hook up a generator to this guy spinning on his story and it would power a suburb. Mostly he just says 'um' a lot, its a sure sign that someone has no clue, that and god telling him to start it in the first place. 
)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith Look on the bright side, tommorrow some advisor will blow in the presidents ear and the windchimes in there will babble out something in broken english which roughly translates as being 'We're winning again!' (I swear, hook up a generator to this guy spinning on his story and it would power a suburb. Mostly he just says 'um' a lot, its a sure sign that someone has no clue, that and god telling him to start it in the first place. ) |
Who is this traitorous librul that states such blasphemy?:
| quote: |
| Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right -- that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war... The "good news" that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone's heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq's 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country's future is being waged. In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation's will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...he_medias_right |
Have the thought police paid you a visit yet?
You sound like youre about due for a bit of the republican whipping with a white feather in a punisment battallion to knock those filthy, hippy, unamerican thoughts out of your system and turn you into a proper, red blooded killer for the glory of the state against eastasia and for your own damn good.
I really should get to sleep. 
And one last thing about how negative the news has been out of Iraq. It's fun as fuck for the 101st Keyboard Wingnut Brigade along with Laura Bush and friends to complain about the negativity of the news media on Iraq.
I guess it's another fucking thing to see those true journalists on the ground getting killed covering that gosh darn negative news stuff, 129 of them since 2003 and counting:
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html
With 32 of those journalists dying in 2006 alone:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...ist_Deaths.html
So to recap:
32: Number of journalists killed while covering the Iraq War in 2006 alone
15: Number of journalist support staffers killed in Iraq in 2006 alone
0: Number of chickenhawk rightwing bloggers killed while pissing and moaning about war coverage since the war began
(P.S. - this commentary of mine is not directly pointed at Neo's comments. It is, more or less, pointed towards the winger bloggers complaining about the negative coverage. More can be found here:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200612190008)
The thought police have come for me 5 times already.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.