I think it will be within a year and a half. After the elation of this election, reality will soon follow.

I do not think there will be conscription.

If there IS some form of conscription, it will either happen in 2005, or in 2007.

I can guaran-goddamn-t-you that it will NOT happen in 2006 or 2008 (barring an attack that dwarfs 9/11).

That sounds about right. I reckon it will be in place and functional very quickly. Watch for the spin to appear shortly.

Just out of idle curiousity, were you ever in the military?

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the overwhelming majority of people in uniform want to have to deal with a bunch of non-volunteers about as much as they want a sharp stick in the eye.

I was in the reserves. I know what you are saying, but the military needs bodies. Who the hell is going to volunteer to go to Iraq in an ill equipped force fighting an enemy they can't see? At least in Viet Nam, they were well equipped.

Bingo.

And if there is a draft, you'll see a large increase in our out of the close "gay" population. :agrin:

Bingo.

And if there is a draft, you'll see a large increase in our out of the close "gay" population. :agrin: [/b][/quote]
:D

Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)

I was in the reserves. I know what you are saying, but the military needs bodies. Who the hell is going to volunteer to go to Iraq in an ill equipped force fighting an enemy they can't see? At least in Viet Nam, they were well equipped. [/b][/quote]
You are truly uninformed.

Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts. [/b][/quote]


The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria. [/b][/quote]
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve?

You are truly uninformed. [/b][/quote]
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.

Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve? [/b][/quote]


I am only an armchair general.

Are you sure you are not confusing the US with USSR's war in Afganistan?? It is not even close to a quagmire. I doubt we will send more troops then we have now. The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D

Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve? [/b][/quote]
Afghanistan just announced their new ELECTED president, after the results of the first election Afghan women have ever participated in were tallied. What planet are you on. I served for 8 years.

I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do.

I am only an armchair general.

Are you sure you are not confusing the US with USSR's war in Afganistan?? It is not even close to a quagmire. I doubt we will send more troops then we have now. The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D [/b][/quote]
That was my point. The quagmire did not refer to US troops. They are mired in the shit of Iraq.

I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do. [/b][/quote]
Sure, Peaches. The last defense of the uninformed. Say nothing and hope no one notices.

Afganistan is a shit hole. It has always been that way, and will continue to be that way. Who cares? As long as they are not causing problems internationally, and not hurting the US interest, they can do whatever they want.

Sure, Peaches. The last defense of the uninformed. Say nothing and hope no one notices. [/b][/quote]
Wow, you busted me. You're just too smart for any of us here. Yet, here you are after you get banned time and time and time again........

Afghanistan just announced their new ELECTED president, after the results of the first election Afghan women have ever participated in were tallied. What planet are you on. I served for 8 years. [/b][/quote]
The elected officials of Afghanistan will never run that country. They have even odds of surviving their term. There are tons of "elected" governments in Africa too. Who the hell cares if they have democracy anyway? What has that got to do with the price of bacon or the training of terrorists?

I am not nearly as concerned about the supply of recruits as I am about retention.

Both are tied to the economy. As long as Bush continues to "grow" the economy in the manner he has so far, recruiting will not be a problem, but retention could become one very soon.

I hope you are right. I don't think you are.

J'Dude, is that really you?
;-)))

Of course it is. Didn't you recognize my accent?

Of course it is. Didn't you recognize my accent? [/b][/quote]
I have not,
I was busy voting
;-)))

hahahahahahahahahahaha


brains are not your strong suit, do you dance?

Isn't that attitude what got us to where we are today? If we walk away from Afghanistan before we build a truly stable central government, we will have failed.

I don't think quaqmyre fits the situation in Afghanistan, but I think declaring victory at this point calls for a carrier landing in a flight suit. It would not suprise me to see more troops deployed to Afghanistan in the next year.

Hmmm... I would hope that there would not be a draft, but be aware that we (meaning we as in we the people, ya know, the guvmint) spend 26 million dollars a year and employ 13,412 people in various positions (full, part time and volunteer) to guarantee that if a draft is called for that we can react quickly.

That is a hell of a lot of effort for something that won't be needed because
************************************************** ************

refs...............

http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm

On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 - 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate.

Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have stated for the record that they oppose a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also has opposed the draft on numerous occasions.

Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

WHO MUST REGISTER

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

chart of whomust register: http://www.sss.gov/must.htm

http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM

QUICK FACTS AND FIGURES
Registration compliance (end of Sept 2003)

Men 18 to 25 years old who have registered: 93 percent Men 20 to 25 years old who have registered (draft-eligible): 95.4 percent Number of names and addresses on file for men 18 to 25 years old: About 13.5 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Budget (FY 2004)

$26,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Personnel

Full-time positions (FTEs) are authorized at 166. Part-time Reserve Force Officer (RFO) positions staffed in peacetime are 350. There are 56 part-time State Directors (including Guam, Puerto Rico, N. Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, Washington, D.C., and New York City). There are 10,620 part-time volunteer Local & Appeal Board members and 240 Civilian Review Board members (part-time volunteers). Number of Local Boards currently total 1,980

:rolleyes:

this is interesting though.... our troops have not been called back. we are running out of replacements. I watched the segment on 60 minutes about the humvees with plywood floors, and the motorola non secure radios that are being used....with all this money, why not have the appropriate equipment to fight this war....



and eventually we have to rotate a lot of these guys home. We are sending national guardsmen over as is.


a draft is not something out of the question with the agenda we have, and our military oplan of attack in themiddle east, not to mention north korea.

So many things to comment on.

Peaches - no increase in out of the closet gays - homosexuality will be a crime in the US, cause thats the way it is in the bible :)

I give the draft no chance of happening unless we invade another country - then I give it a 50% chance.

If we are attacked again I give it a 90% chance.

PD right on the money - no draft possible in the election years

Grimm - as for the resouces in Iraq - (IMO) we are going to start pulling back there - enough republicans WITH re-election to worry about have seen there is a large segment of te population that is not too happy about the way things are going there - fear not though we will still guard the oil interest, it is important that we keep control of our new huge oil reserve.

this is interesting though.... our troops have not been called back. we are running out of replacements. I watched the segment on 60 minutes about the humvees with plywood floors, and the motorola non secure radios that are being used....with all this money, why not have the appropriate equipment to fight this war....



and eventually we have to rotate a lot of these guys home. We are sending national guardsmen over as is.


a draft is not something out of the question with the agenda we have, and our military oplan of attack in themiddle east, not to mention north korea. [/b][/quote]
More money for the military would solve the problems with equipment and more soldiers with no draft needed.

I agree that more money for the military will fix a lot of the problems with equiptment, but so would more responsible spending, the government still spends WAY to much for everything - I think it is better than the days of $400 toilet seats, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I disagree that more money will fill the bodies needed IF this thing escalates, yes they have met their current recruitment goals, but I am predicting they will not in the coming years. While there is active warfare happening (all bets are off IF there is anoth attack on the US)

People that are looking to sign up to go get shot at are pretty scarce (which is one of the reasons we have so few special forces, and why the Marines are a small service branch)

As far as the rate of pay the soldies, sailors, airmen, marines get - triple it today. raise my taxes if necessary. These men and women are so underpaid for the job they do it is silly. (see folks it is very possible to oppose the war and support the soldier)

As for supporting the CIC - blind support of the chain of command is simply stupid (I learned that from my chain of command)

Military
Police
Fireman

All paid far too little

Especially when I compare it to what I get paid to sling smut

well most of that post was your predictions,thoughts and some things that are just not true. The above statement is nothing be BS. for example, marines are not SMALL because of any shortages that's just plain nuts, please dont post things as facts just becasue you think or want them to be.

Quick question since we have so many vets in here.... my son is 15 and he went to the recruiters awhile back, asking about qualifications to get into the military, found out about taking the ASVAB, etc. etc. Anyway, after answering a few preliminary questions he found out that he would be unable to join based on over 95% of jobs listed because he is color-blind. This includes anything combat oriented and basically only leaves him with desk jobs - although nothing tech-oriented like he was hoping. :(

Anyway - my question is... because they most likely wouldn't accept him in times of peace, would he be elligble for the draft? At that point would they just NOT care whether he is color-blind or what?

TIA for any info you can share.

:salute:

What's interesting is when I was researching the military for CT, a large percentage of military members said they'd not only do it again, but they'd do it for free.

Jeff, I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people in this country who are willing to fight for what they believe.

The $$$ issues I'm talking about isn't for more pay, it's to increase size so they can recruit more. Right now the AF is required to get rid of 20K enlistees and the Navy is close to that number.

Dan,

Maybe it is the cold medicine and I am not making myself clear.

I do not thinkl the Marines have any shortages - They are small with good reason, there are simply not that many that can cut it as a Marine

I have HUGE, DEEP, repect for anyone willing to put themselves in harms way.

I simply believe that you are not going to continue to find that many people looking to volunteer to go get shot at, especially when the war we are fighting is not against the people who attacked us.


Peaches - I think you are overestimating the number. (one of us is probably mistaken, I honestly hope things don't get so bad we need to find out)

Now, I'm a Navy man, so I'm biting back an entire library of jokes here, but ...

There is no way the Marine Corps is a small service due to a lack of volunteers. The Marine Corps is a small service due to the nature of its mission. Throughout most of the all-volunteer force era, the Marine Corps has had the highest standards for enlistment.

And boys and girls, no offense, but the number of people willing "to volunteer to go get shot at" fluctuates greatly with the economy.

I spend a lot of time on a military message board. The number of kids that are being turned away because of juvenille felonies, prior hard drug use, broken but healed bones, etc. is amazing and that's just the number of people who are taking the time to post about it on that one board.

I just find it VERY hard to believe that if they got more money into the system and lifted the restrictions they couldn't easily fill up any need for enlisted they need with zero need for a draft. Right now they are being very picky because they can only let a certain number in.

But I could be wrong - it's happened before :awinky:

Back in the days when it was hard to get people to join the service and a waiver could be granted more easilly for a juvinile felony, the attrition rate (failure to complete basic training) for those individuals was about 3 times the average of those without similar circumstances. Prior hard drug use substantiated by a record check (schools, law enforcement) was about the same.

The medical standards due tend to be a lot more arbitrary, and never did have much of an impact on attrition. Don't know what, if any, problems they presented over the course of an enlistment/career.

The standards are there for a lot more reasons than just hassling people.

The standards fluctute based on the supply of recruits, which is dependent upon the economy.