The Military Draft

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me.

Read an enlistment contract, please. The reserves have the same long term obligations the active duty folks do. They are reserves solely to save money in peacetime. In wartime they are called up to active duty. "Emergency" is such a loaded word.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me.

The Army Reserve's mission, under Title 10 of the U.S. code, is to provide trained and ready Soldiers and units with the critical combat service support and combat support capabilities necessary to support national strategy during peacetime, contingencies and war. The Army Reserve is a key element in The Army multi-component unit force, training with Active and National Guard units to ensure all three components work as a fully integrated team.

Text

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me.

Why do you idiots keep up with the lies? I don't know who told you this or why you believe them, but your facts about the Reserves being there for emergencies is not correct. It is because the Reserves and Guard makes up over 50% of our overall troop strength, which was implemented during the Clinton administration.

 

[SuperTool]

Well, they are reserves. If you are using your reserves and your active duty just for Iraq and Afghanistan, should another emergency arise, where are you gonna get the troops?

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Again, if there is no shortage of troops why are we using the reserves as full time soldiers.

Once again I'm telling you it was because the total force shifted from using more reservists and guardsmen than active duty back in the 90's. Are you always this thick? The role of the reserves and National Guard has ALWAYS been a part of the total force. The National Guard has a dual role, with both state and federal obligations, hence the reason the state governors can call them up for emergencies. The reserves have only a federal role and can only be called up for a federal emergency.

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me.

The Army Reserve's mission, under Title 10 of the U.S. code, is to provide trained and ready Soldiers and units with the critical combat service support and combat support capabilities necessary to support national strategy during peacetime, contingencies and war. The Army Reserve is a key element in The Army multi-component unit force, training with Active and National Guard units to ensure all three components work as a fully integrated team.

Text

Thanks, I never thought of that. Note that during the 90's, the decision was made that all Army Reserves units would no longer be combat arms units, and they were converted to take on the support role. Interestingly enough, the Guard picked up quite a lot of those combat arms units to maintain overall readiness for Artillery, Air Defense, Infantry, etc.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, they are reserves. If you are using your reserves and your active duty just for Iraq and Afghanistan, should another emergency arise, where are you gonna get the troops?

The majority of our troops are in the continental United States. Yes, the military is stressed, but it's nowhere near it's limit. The U.S. military has been training to respond to multiple situations around the globe since before WW II. If we get in a conflict with Korea, we're not caught with our pants down.

 

[jemcam]

They are there for temporary emergencies, not long term occupations. We are using them as active duty troops. So If we are using our reserves as active duty troops, who are we gonna use if we have another emergency? Could very well be a draft. Maybe with status quo we won't need one, but are you willing to bet your life on the status quo? Not me

Yes, I did serve in the military and also am a Desert Storm vet so I have proven that I'm willing to give my life for my country.

Me training with the Egyptian Army in 1999.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, they are reserves. If you are using your reserves and your active duty just for Iraq and Afghanistan, should another emergency arise, where are you gonna get the troops?

The majority of our troops are in the continental United States. Yes, the military is stressed, but it's nowhere near it's limit. The U.S. military has been training to respond to multiple situations around the globe since before WW II. If we get in a conflict with Korea, we're not caught with our pants down.

You can't fight wars without troops. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to secure weapons, so don't tell me we have enough troops should another conflict arise or needs in Iraq increase. Bush is still behind his preemptive war doctrine, so another war is a real possibility.
Does Bush believe we won't need a draft: maybe.
Is he qualified to make a prediction that we won't need a draft: hell no.
He couldn't even plan for occupation in Iraq, and you are gonna believe his prediction for next 4 years?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, they are reserves. If you are using your reserves and your active duty just for Iraq and Afghanistan, should another emergency arise, where are you gonna get the troops?

The majority of our troops are in the continental United States. Yes, the military is stressed, but it's nowhere near it's limit. The U.S. military has been training to respond to multiple situations around the globe since before WW II. If we get in a conflict with Korea, we're not caught with our pants down.

You can't fight wars without troops.

Sure you can. You just can't hold ground without them.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, they are reserves. If you are using your reserves and your active duty just for Iraq and Afghanistan, should another emergency arise, where are you gonna get the troops?

The majority of our troops are in the continental United States. Yes, the military is stressed, but it's nowhere near it's limit. The U.S. military has been training to respond to multiple situations around the globe since before WW II. If we get in a conflict with Korea, we're not caught with our pants down.

You can't fight wars without troops. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to secure weapons, so don't tell me we have enough troops should another conflict arise or needs in Iraq increase. Bush is still behind his preemptive war doctrine, so another war is a real possibility.
Does Bush believe we won't need a draft: maybe.
Is he qualified to make a prediction that we won't need a draft: hell no.
He couldn't even plan for occupation in Iraq, and you are gonna believe his prediction for next 4 years?

You are a liberal pussy spouting off propaganda with no facts. WTF are you talking about? Nothing you've said has any basis in truth.

The real reason you're against the draft is because you're afraid of getting drafted yourself. Too bad, it could make a man out of you and open your eyes to the real world.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We don't have enough troops in Iraq to secure weapons

How long are you going to spout this little piece of misinformation? :roll:

The left tried very hard to use this as an election eve trump and it blew up in their faces when the NYT got greedy and stole the story from CBS a week early.

Face it, they got so excited they blew their wad early, and the truth has had time to come out.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We don't have enough troops in Iraq to secure weapons

How long are you going to spout this little piece of misinformation? :roll:

The left tried very hard to use this as an election eve trump and it blew up in their faces when the NYT got greedy and stole the story from CBS a week early.

Face it, they got so excited they blew their wad early, and the truth has had time to come out.

Oh, that's what he's talking about? I guess he didn't see the news yesterday that it's been proven that those explosives were missing before we occupied Iraq. Either that or he's ignoring it. Of course, CBS news always is truthful and never publishes a story without verifying all the facts, right Mr. Rather?

 

[SuperTool]

We are talking about the future. There are no facts about the future that I am aware of.
How do I know we can't secure the weapons? Because they haven't been secured and are now being used on our troops.
You are spreading Republican propoganda and misinformation. Unlike you, I am not saying categorically that there will be a draft, but pointing out that Bush is in no position to categorically say there won't be one given how wrong his predictions have been.

 

[jemcam]

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED...

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apprent October Surprise: The Iraqi interim government and the U.N. nuclear agency have warned the United States that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.

In an election week rush:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry?s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We are talking about the future. There are no facts about the future that I am aware of.
How do I know we can't secure the weapons? Because they haven't been secured and are now being used on our troops.
You are spreading Republican propoganda and misinformation. Unlike you, I am not saying categorically that there will be a draft, but pointing out that Bush is in no position to categorically say there won't be one given how wrong his predictions have been.

You really expected them to know the location of every single arms storage location in Iraq and be able to secure them all with zero lag time from when the Iraqi army abandoned their posts?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We are talking about the future. There are no facts about the future that I am aware of.
How do I know we can't secure the weapons? Because they haven't been secured and are now being used on our troops.

An army cannot very well secure something until they take the area.

You are spreading Republican propoganda and misinformation. Unlike you, I am not saying categorically that there will be a draft, but pointing out that Bush is in no position to categorically say there won't be one given how wrong his predictions have been.

There you are wrong again. The size of the military could easily be doubled without a draft simply by allow an increase in size. ALL agencies involved have repeated over and over again that there is NO NEED FOR A DRAFT.

Not only that, but history has shown that conscripted armies are far less effective than volunteer armies.

Face it, all the facts are against you. You are merely spreading party line FUD.

 

[SuperTool]

Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

 

[OMGoddess]

Sure it could, but not until next spring. And it doesn't matter who's the President.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

oh.....my.....god. Can you not think for yourself and just spout party lines?

Amused has already provided the facts.

this is why it doesn't surprise me that people think we will have another draft - they can't think for themselves.

 

[SuperTool]

The question was

Anyone actually believe it could come back?

And the answer is yes, it could. You can't predict the future and say with 100% certainty that it won't, therefore it could.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

Think about this logically for just a moment if you can. How can you secure something in the middle of a country before you occupy it? I think you're either trying to save face or you are really, really stupid.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

Think about this logically for just a moment if you can. How can you secure something in the middle of a country before you occupy it? I think you're either trying to save face or you are really, really stupid.

Think about this logically yourself. If you are invading a country to prevent WMD's from falling into hands of terrorists, and you know there is a site with dual use explosives, and you invade the country with insufficient number of troops and fail to secure that site and those dual use weapons fall into hands of terrorists, doesn't that mean that you have allowed to happen the very thing you were trying to prevent. Saddam's weapons have fallen in the hands of terrorists.
I know you aren't trying to save face, so I am left with the conclusion that you are really really stupid.

 

[Zeeky Boogy Doog]

i hate dumb people!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

Think about this logically for just a moment if you can. How can you secure something in the middle of a country before you occupy it? I think you're either trying to save face or you are really, really stupid.

Think about this logically yourself. If you are invading a country to prevent WMD's from falling into hands of terrorists, and you know there is a site with dual use explosives, and you invade the country with insufficient number of troops and fail to secure that site and those dual use weapons fall into hands of terrorists, doesn't that mean that you have allowed to happen the very thing you were trying to prevent. Saddam's weapons have fallen in the hands of terrorists.
I know you aren't trying to save face, so I am left with the conclusion that you are really really stupid.

Wow. I really didn't think a person could be this thick.

My hat is off to you.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well duh. Obviously the weapons vanished before the troops arrived to the site. Noone is saying that the troops arrived there and then gave the explosives away. The point is they didn't secure the weapons sites fast enough to prevent the weapons from vanishing, because they didn't have enough troops to do that. It seems to me if you are starting a war to prevent weapons from falling into hands of terrorists, you should actually make sure weapons don't fall into hands of terrorists.

Think about this logically for just a moment if you can. How can you secure something in the middle of a country before you occupy it? I think you're either trying to save face or you are really, really stupid.

Think about this logically yourself. If you are invading a country to prevent WMD's from falling into hands of terrorists, and you know there is a site with dual use explosives, and you invade the country with insufficient number of troops and fail to secure that site and those dual use weapons fall into hands of terrorists, doesn't that mean that you have allowed to happen the very thing you were trying to prevent. Saddam's weapons have fallen in the hands of terrorists.
I know you aren't trying to save face, so I am left with the conclusion that you are really really stupid.

Wow. I really didn't think a person could be this thick.

My hat is off to you.

Well, at least you aren't disputing my arguments. You can attack me personally all you want.