Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Possibility for a draft?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City
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.

I'd like to see what Gates comes up with. When the military continues to miss its recruiting goals I don't see how they could seriously increase troop levels without a draft.

Old Post Dec-20-2006 18:16  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DevilDogUSMC
Senior tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Rockland Co., NY

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.


___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

Old Post Dec-20-2006 20:09  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DevilDogUSMC Click here to Send DevilDogUSMC a Private Message Visit DevilDogUSMC's homepage! Add DevilDogUSMC to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Moongoose
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Celje, Slovenia

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.


___________________

Old Post Dec-20-2006 20:26  Slovenia
Click Here to See the Profile for Moongoose Click here to Send Moongoose a Private Message Add Moongoose to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Sunsnail
Global Moderator



Registered: Sep 2004
Location:

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.


Are you being serious?

Old Post Dec-20-2006 21:23 
Click Here to See the Profile for Sunsnail Click here to Send Sunsnail a Private Message Add Sunsnail to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lilith
Meowsies!



Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Maximum Security twilight home for cats

quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
Are you being serious?


Thats what I was wondering, you don't blow up armoured vehicles or kill 150+ people in a market with a rock.

Least on this forum no one would get drafted... all get a big F on the drug testing

Old Post Dec-20-2006 21:56 
Click Here to See the Profile for Lilith Click here to Send Lilith a Private Message Add Lilith to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
star-traveller
Kill All Humans



Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Amsterdam, NL

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.


Fawking hell, you are seriously brainwashed pal.

Old Post Dec-20-2006 22:16  Europe
Click Here to See the Profile for star-traveller Click here to Send star-traveller a Private Message Add star-traveller to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DevilDogUSMC
Senior tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Rockland Co., NY

quote:
Originally posted by star-traveller
Fawking hell, you are seriously brainwashed pal.


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.


___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

Old Post Dec-20-2006 22:46  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DevilDogUSMC Click here to Send DevilDogUSMC a Private Message Visit DevilDogUSMC's homepage! Add DevilDogUSMC to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City

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.

I find it hard to believe that the media is intentionally withholding positive progress in Iraq.

Old Post Dec-20-2006 23:38  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
I find it hard to believe that the media is intentionally withholding positive progress in Iraq.


I won't say one way or the other as far as if we're "winning" in Iraq. I would argue that the media "business" reports to get viewers and readers. 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. As much as we'd like it, there is no "law" saying that media outlets have to report everything. If they have learned that American loss equals viewers/readers, then American loss is what they will report.

Old Post Dec-21-2006 00:25  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lilith
Meowsies!



Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Maximum Security twilight home for cats

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.

Old Post Dec-21-2006 01:19 
Click Here to See the Profile for Lilith Click here to Send Lilith a Private Message Add Lilith to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City

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.

That's speculation, it'd be just as easy to say the reverse.

Old Post Dec-21-2006 01:44  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lilith
Meowsies!



Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Maximum Security twilight home for cats

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.

Old Post Dec-21-2006 02:01 
Click Here to See the Profile for Lilith Click here to Send Lilith a Private Message Add Lilith to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Possibility for a draft?
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackUnknown Techno, that may be Matrix related [2005] [1]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackMarkus Schulz feat. Andy Moor - "Daydream" [2008]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:13.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!