is a draft imminent?

[belgareth]

We never have been able to do

any real good there. The war in Iraq was and is a fruad done for political reasons that had nothing to do with the

avowed goals. You are absolutely right that we are making terrorism and rebellion worse. We should have never gone

there and we should get out, the sooner the better.

[Biohazard]

If Bush was

going to be an "effective" Commander in Chief, in addition to a "good" warmonger, he would institute a draft.



But I'm not sure he is committed to excellence in anything, even bad things. He can just milk the current

forces until they're "dry"; or all get killed/rebel/go insane; and take the short term gains for his cronies. "Once

they've snorted all the coke, they'll happily leave the party". He will count on continued Republican governmental

control; the continued support of the religious right; and on the upper eschelon of neocons to bring in another gang

to continue their corporate imperialism.

By the same token, he is not going to care about the recent poor

report card from the 9/11 commission, since he is not about excellence in fighting terrorism, except as it

supports his neocon "coke habit."

C'mon man, you don't have to come off sounding like some leftist

partisan. These paragraphs look like they were just cut and pasted from some militant Democratic or Socialist

interest board.

Surely one can criticize the president's decisions without inferring that he's somehow not

genuine about improving the country and the world. And if you're inferring that his decisions won't somehow

affect the ability of Republicans to stay in power, you're wrong. I do believe if Democrats make some slight

adjustments in their ideals, and move towards the middle, they can start regaining a foothold. So this

administration indeed has a lot to lose (for instance if Kerry didn't pull his gun charade in Ohio he might have

won), and therefore must strive for continual progress.

But back to the current goings-on of the world.

The US economy seems robust, gas prices are down so people appear to be spending more this holiday season, now talk

of troop withdrawals. The illegal immigration issue needs some work still. But overall, these are not good news

for those who are hoping for a change in the political landscape.

[DrSmellThis]

These

paragraphs look like they were just cut and pasted from some militant Democratic or Socialist interest board.



Surely one can criticize the president's decisions without inferring that he's somehow not genuine about

improving the country and the world.

That's me -- militant socialist. Don't know what got into me,

questioning the genuineness and integrity of our president. More middle of the road, status quo Dems is just what we

need. Go Hillary.

[koolking1]

"BTW, Koolking is right to

see the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's speaking up against Rumsfeld as significant. It doesn't get any

more than telling than that, as regards the attitude of the military. I don't think the generals are going to

support Bush forever on this, especially given that their Chairman is already starting to contradict the authority

of the Administration. They actually care about their men, and are tired of having been ignored; when, for example,

they projected needing a half million troops on the ground (not counting support troops), IIRC. This repeated,

insistent claim by Bush that he always listens to his generals must really anger them."

I've read on the

WayneMadsen site that there's to be a big meeting of former Jt Chiefs of Staff, Intel agency heads, some current

congressmen, to include Sen McCain in Washington tomorrow. Very telling is that this meeting is being

"investigated" by the Pentagon perhaps directed by Rumsfeld. Topic: "Torture"

[Biohazard]

That's me

-- militant socialist. Don't know what got into me, questioning the genuineness and integrity of our president.

More middle of the road, status quo Dems is just what we need. Go Hillary.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Just teasing ya man. I'm just saying ad hominem attacks are for kids. You can make decent arguments directly

against GWB's decisions, just like any other president. It also makes you more credible.

[DrSmellThis]

Hook, line,

and sinker. Just teasing ya man. I'm just saying ad hominem attacks are for kids. You can make decent arguments

directly against GWB's decisions, just like any other president. It also makes you more credible.

I get it.

His character, intentions and honesty are off limits.

[belgareth]

Sources: Units' Deployment May Be Canceled By LOLITA C. BALDOR,

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has tentative

plans to halt the scheduled deployment of two brigades to Iraq and instead send in smaller teams to support and

train Iraqi forces in what could be an early step toward an eventual drawdown of U.S. forces, defense officials said

Wednesday.

The proposal comes amid growing pressure from Congress

and the public to pull troops out of Iraq. Details are still under discussion, and it would largely depend on the

military and political conditions there after the parliamentary elections next week, said the

officials.

The two officials, who did not want to be identified

because the plans have not yet been finalized, said a third brigade, initially scheduled to go to Afghanistan,

may also stay home. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to announce the plan after the Iraq election

next Thursday, if all goes well, they said.

Pentagon officials have

said all along that they hope to reduce U.S. troop levels, now at about 154,000, as Iraqi security forces become

more capable of defending their own country. A brigade usually numbers around 3,500

troops.

Under the plan, deployment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry

Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be canceled. Instead, for the first time, portions of the brigade would

be divided into 10- or 11-member military transition teams that would be sent separately into Iraq to work with

Iraqi security forces.

Also, some other members of the brigade would

go to Iraq to do security duty, such as guarding high profile targets.

The second unit that would not deploy to Iraq is the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, which is currently in

Kuwait and is usually based in Germany. Under the plan, up to two-thirds of the brigade would return to Germany,

while the rest would stay in Kuwait, prepared to respond to any emergency in

Iraq.

The 4th Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Polk,

La., would not go to Afghanistan.

NATO has been gradually

expanding across Afghanistan, assuming responsibility for security from the U.S.-led coalition. The NATO-led force

has about 12,000 soldiers from 36 nations and is responsible for security in Kabul as well as northern and western

regions of the country. A separate, 20,000-strong U.S.-led force is in the east and south hunting Taliban and

al-Qaida fighters.

The new deployment plan would not dramatically

reduce the number U.S. forces in Iraq but instead would set the stage for a gradual troop reduction, allowing the

military to stop or delay other unit deployments planned for 2006-2008.

President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal timetable, and the administration has consistently said

U.S. troops will remain as long as needed. The administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney at the forefront,

has strongly criticized a call last week by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., for a U.S.

withdrawal within six months.

A month ago, the Pentagon announced

that more than 92,000 troops would be in the next rotation of U.S. forces in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the 92,000 should

not be taken as the final troop level and said the exact size would not be decided until after the election. The

usual troop level this year has been about 138,000, but the total peaked at about 160,000 this fall because of

concerns about heightened violence during the elections.

[DrSmellThis]

In rereading this thread, the

sad thing is that there really does need to be an armed forces. Security has a cost; and defending your

country really is a brave, responsible, wonderful and patriotic thing.

But this whole beautiful rationale

gets compromised and contaminated when a nation's leadership exhibits a pattern of using their armed forces for

unjust, nonsensical, and destructive ends.

That creates a situation where there is no clear best way,

speaking in general, to do the right thing as a patriot, regarding joining the military; as well as

fighting and following orders when you are in the military. The moral waters of patriotism can only be

muddy at that point, as much as some want still to cast it as a black and white issue. You are reduced to having

to consider each situation individually. This is one reason why I avoid judging soldiers and "non-soldiers" for

their response to this situation.

The same is true of a draft as is true of participating in the military, for

the same reason.

You can have a draft, and there would be many positive aspects to recommend it. There would

also be many negative aspects to advise against it. In terms of abstract generalities, it's not one way or the

other, given our recent foreign policy. Whether having a draft is truly the right thing to do or not must therefore

depend on many things in the moment, and situation. What is right under this administration versus another might

well be different things, for example. You also have to consider current world events, national security plans, war

plans, expected courses of future domestic and international events, and timetables; as regards war and peace; in

order to make a morally and politically sound decision. Even then you are likely calculating odds, and guessing

about uncertainties along the way. And it's not just whether or not you draft. It's what else you do.

I am

still open to all reasonable arguments and proposals for and against a draft, but haven't heard one that accounts

for all it would have to account for, in the big picture of the moment. There simply cannot be a good, brief,

abstract, general argument either way.

The more fundamental issue is that we shouldn't have to be in this

situation in the first place; and need to work to change this predicament we're in. Perhaps that is where our

energy should go.

The only real solution is to have politics "stop at the water's edge" -- where leaders would

never let their political agenda affect matters of war and peace to the point of sending our sons and daughters to

kill or be killed; when it is not absolutely necessary; and when it is not a last resort. Should "the water's edge"

be violated, no one can really feel deeply and confidently good about themselves and each other, until such

leadership is removed. So people cannot agree about the best way to "support our troops", for example.

When a

leader violates a country's trust, and the most precious part of their souls; by misusing the military for

politics, power and profit; it is just about the worst crime against his or her own people that a leader can commit.

Every young person who dies needlessly serves to drive that point home.

[Biohazard]

I get it.

His character, intentions and honesty are off limits.

Those are fair game whenever appropriate. But

the way you phrased it like, "Bush doesn't want to excel at anything... therefore his actions...." just made it

seem like you're trying to bring down someone's argument by primarily attacking the person, not the argument.

That's all I was pointing out.

[DrSmellThis]

Those are

fair game whenever appropriate. But the way you phrased it like, "Bush doesn't want to excel at anything...

therefore his actions...." just made it seem like you're trying to bring down someone's argument by primarily

attacking the person, not the argument. That's all I was pointing out.

Thanks for the explanation. I really

don't believe our president (or his closest associates) is committed to excellence in his actual job; or to the

welfare of the world; or to the average citizen. That is indeed an opinion about the person. So I'm on thin

ice here any way you look at it. But with the winter of discontent settling in for so many, maybe it'll be OK

on the ice.

[Mtnjim]

Thanks for the

explanation. I really don't believe our president (or his closest associates) is committed to excellence in his

actual job; or to the welfare of the world; or to the average citizen. ...

Personally, I don't think he is

capable of excellence, based on his history.
Look at his "military career" where he basically just walked away from

it. After that his daddy set him up in a gas property buying business where he failed. and so on. His "success" in

his political jobs only comes from people behind him pulling the strings and making decisions for him. Just my

opinion.

[koolking1]

Bush on the Constitution:

'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
Email this article


Printer friendly page


Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet

with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions

of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger

that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like

Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the

more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched

attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush

retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the

meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop

throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve

talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States

called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of

the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots

have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto

Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside,

for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or

Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the

Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine –

in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an

oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice

Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the

phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to

mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have

to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything

else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a

controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed

some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban

on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of

rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a

one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight

terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told

President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care?

After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”


© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue



Sounding more and more dictatorial. I wonder if an enlistment contract is just a piece of paper. When will

this end?

[belgareth]

The consitution is a piece of

paper. The concepts written on that piece of paper are great concepts though I agree that they are in many ways

outdated and it needs updating. Over time our society has changed in innumerable ways and much is not addressed in

the constitution allowing the goverment many opportunities to skirt the intent of this wonderful document. The

updating it needs would take power away from the government in hundreds of little ways and would enforce greater

accountability of the government to the people. The intent of the constitution was to prevent a ruling elite to set

itself above the people but that is exactly what we have, isn't it? It was intended that the will of the people be

the final word not just another reason to turn to the courts to twist its intent out of all recognition.

No, it

is not a living document and yes it does need updating by the people, not by the government.

[DrSmellThis]

Did you all buy yor Patriot

Act toilet paper yet? It has the words of the constitution printed on it.

[DrSmellThis]

No, it is

not a living document and yes it does need updating by the people, not by the government.

Sometimes you have

to change something to keep it the same in spirit, intent and effect. Society has changed a great deal since 1776.

As long as its truly the people that change it, it's OK. We could all send our amendments to our congressmen, and

the newspapers.

[belgareth]

Sometimes

you have to change something to keep it the same in spirit, intent and effect. Society has changed a great deal

since 1776. As long as its truly the people that change it, it's OK.

That's more or less what I said.

Unfortunately, the part about the ruling elite is a problem. So long as they 'the government' are in charge of

'we the people', it isn't going to happen that way. One of the most important criteria of our form of government

is citizen legislators and that is not true of our government today. Those in power will not willingly give up their

power and privilage. It takes us back to a topic of a few years ago, we've come full circle in this conversation.

If and until the people work together at the polls and through voicing their displeasure with business as usual it

will continue to get worse. I don't know about anybody else but I certanly wouldn't trust the ruling elite, any of

it, to touch the constitution.

[belgareth]

If

you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theater of operations during the last

22 months, and a total of
2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington

D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you
are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's

Capitol,
which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than
you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We

should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.

[koolking1]

"we should immediately pull

out of Washington DC"

I agree one hundred percent. There are only a handful of people I will now vote for

and I'm determined to act locally and vote out the incumbents, Dem or Rep.

[belgareth]

"we should

immediately pull out of Washington DC"

I agree one hundred percent. There are only a handful of people I will

now vote for and I'm determined to act locally and vote out the incumbents, Dem or Rep.

I'm with you.

you've got a whole handful that you'll vote for? I admit Joe Lieberman jumped a couple notches in my opinion when

he once again said what he thinks instead of following the party line. Maybe there is still some honor in our

capitol after all. I don't completely agree with what he said but admire his courage in saying it.

[Netghost56]

I don't completely agree

with what he said but admire his courage in saying it.

I'm not sure courage has anything to do with. IMO, he

doesn't seem to have much power these days.

(Talking about crossing party lines) John McCain, however...

[DrSmellThis]

If you

consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22

months, and a total of
2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C.

is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you
are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's

Capitol,
which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than
you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We

should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.

LOL. Not quarreling with your humorous point, but just a

reminder -- these kind of statistics are meaningless unless you include the time periods over which the deaths

occur. You have to match apples with apples. To get a real picture of the war damage, you also need to account for

injured/maimed (e.g., lost limbs), and people who are injured or killed and are not counted (e.g., they died away

from the theater of operations (e.g., German hospitals); or we injured indirectly). Another factor is that many of

those troops are support troops, and not in combat, IIRC.

[Biohazard]

LOL. Not

quarreling with your humorous point, but just a reminder -- these kind of statistics are meaningless unless you

include the time periods over which the deaths occur. You have to match apples with apples. To get a real picture of

the war damage, you also need to account for injured/maimed (e.g., lost limbs), and people who are injured or killed

and are not counted (e.g., they died away from the theater of operations (e.g., German hospitals); or we injured

indirectly). Another factor is that many of those troops are support troops, and not in combat,

IIRC.

If we use the casualty rate of the war, which includes all those who have been taken out of

service by death and injury, and compare it to DC's total rate of violent crime victimization, it could still be

fairly close. The problem is that not everyone reports a violent crime (my guess is less than 30%), but every war

casualty is recorded.

[DrSmellThis]

If we use the

casualty rate of the war, which includes all those who have been taken out of service by death and injury, and

compare it to DC's total rate of violent crime victimization, it could still be fairly close. The problem is that

not everyone reports a violent crime (my guess is less than 30%), but every war casualty is

recorded.

Regarding that one factor, you might be right, or might not; but we don't know until we see the

numbers; on all those factors, for that matter. That's all I'm saying. Combat is way more dangerous than

not being in combat, and the kinds of injuries that result can be pretty serious. I was saying all that more because

of other contexts where such statistics are misused, and misinterpreted; not this thread.

[belgareth]

I don't

completely agree with what he said but admire his courage in saying it.

I'm not sure courage has anything to

do with. IMO, he doesn't seem to have much power these days.

(Talking about crossing party lines) John McCain,

however...

One of the points I admired was his crossing the party lines. Party politics are one of the

biggest problems in our system. They cause people to waste a mountain of time following the prty line instead of

engaging in rational debate.

[DrSmellThis]

One of the

points I admired was his crossing the party lines. Party politics are one of the biggest problems in our system.

They cause people to waste a mountain of time following the prty line instead of engaging in rational

debate.

I agree, though I'm not the biggest Lieberman fan. But when there are checks and balances

everywhere, at least people have more pressure to make good arguments. If not, politicians feel they aren't

answerable for their decisions, and confine their words to meaningless slogans and rhetoric. If somehow ordinary

citizens could be made into a more poweful check and balance, that would make a huge differnece. Single party

dominance isn't a good thing either.

[tim929]

Regarding that one factor,

you might be right, or might not; but we don't know until we see the numbers; on all those factors, for that

matter. That's all I'm saying. Combat is way more dangerous than not being in combat, and the kinds of

injuries that result can be pretty serious. I was saying all that more because of other contexts where such

statistics are misused, and misinterpreted; not this thread.

Interesting you should say that.Being in

combat is most definately more dangerous than not being in combat.And there is a definate difference between having

an accident or being the victem of a crime versus having someone try to set off a couple hundred pounds of high

explosive next to your vehichle,or taking a pot shot at you with a high powered rifle or an RPG.The injuries that

one might expect to suffer from being mugged pale in comparison to shrapnel wounds inflicted by an exploding

IED.Many of the wounds that our men and women are suffering in Iraq right now are permenantly debilitating and

disfiguring.A friend of mine has recently returned from the desert and we(his friends) are helping him work through

the emotional trauma of having spent a year in a place where everyone wants to blow you up.So the actual casualties

are alot higher than the listed casualties.

He had the pleasure of seeing people with limbs blown off.One of

thier local advisors(Iraqi) was blown a distance of one hundred fifteen meters(yes,they measured) when he identified

an IED.The opperators of the device saw that it had been discovered and set the damn thing off and split.They

figured it was at least four 122 MM artilery shels slaved together with det cord and blasting caps.Needles to say,he

met allah without alot of fanfare and screaming,but it sent a point home to all the G.I.'s on the patrol that they

werent in Kansas anymore.Shortly folowing the chow hall suicide bombing he was eating at a simmilar chow hall

sitting accross from an Iraqi local who...well...to spare you the long discription,fit the profile of a suicide

bomber.Heavy jackets being worn in 120 degree heat seems alittle "off."Once he was identified the whole place came

unglued with people who were convinced that they were gonna die.My friend was two feet from him and looking him in

the eye.It was a false alarm,but it wakes him up at night thinking about it.

These are the people who ultimately

come home from the war,beat thier children and alienate thier families and turn to a life of booze and drugs to numb

the pain.Much the way survivors of the Revolutionary war,the Civil war,WWI,WWII,Korea,Viet Nam,Desert Storm...and a

host of little untold skirmishes in various third world shit holes like Somalia or Panama.These people are

casualties too.And they always seem to be ignored.

[Mtnjim]

...These are the

people who ultimately come home from the war,beat thier children and alienate thier families and turn to a life of

booze and drugs to numb the pain.Much the way survivors of the Revolutionary war,the Civil war,WWI,WWII,Korea,Viet

Nam,Desert Storm...and a host of little untold skirmishes in various third world shit holes like Somalia or

Panama.These people are casualties too.And they always seem to be ignored.

Here in San Diego County, the

estimate is that the majority of the homeless are Viet Nam vets (my war). I guess some of us did better than others,

I wonder what the demographic will be like in 35 years.

[koolking1]

"Posted on Fri, Dec. 16, 2005
Army accepts more low-aptitude recruitsBy Tom BowmanBaltimore SunWASHINGTON – The

Army met its recruiting goal for November by again accepting a high percentage of recruits who scored in the lowest

category on the military’s aptitude tests, Pentagon officials said Thursday, raising renewed concerns that the

quality of the all-volunteer force will suffer.
The Army exceeded its 5,600 recruit goal by 256 for November,

while the Army Reserve brought in 1,454 recruits, exceeding its target by 112. To do so, they accepted a “double

digit” percentage of recruits who scored between 16 and 30 out of a possible 99 on the military’s aptitude test,

said officials who requested anonymity.
Last month, the Baltimore Sun reported that the Army reached its

recruiting goals in October by accepting 12 percent from these low scorers, known as Category IV recruits. The Army

may accept no more than 4 percent annually, according to Defense Department rules. While officials last month

disclosed the percentage accepted in October, Thursday they refused to reveal the November figure.
“We are not

giving out (aptitude test) categories during the course of the year,” said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army

Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
Still, Army officials continue to say that at the end of the recruiting

year, next Sept. 30, the total percentage of Category IV soldiers will be no more than 4 percent.
For more than a

decade, the Army kept its Category IV soldiers to 2 percent of its recruitment pool.
But last year, faced with a

difficult recruiting climate because of the war in Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey decided to double the number

of Category IV soldiers.
“We will be at 4 percent at the end of the fiscal year, that’s what matters,” said Lt.

Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for Army personnel.
The increasing reliance on the lowest-scoring recruits is

troubling to former officers who fear that the quality of the force will erode.
They say that the increasingly

high-tech Army needs even more qualified soldiers. And with troops facing more complex duties involving nation

building and peacekeeping duties, good judgment is more important."

Laughing here.

[Biohazard]

A Category IV recruit, while

not the ideal candidate for armed forces work, is still likely to do a job better than someone who absolutely

doesn't want to be there IMO.

[koolking1]

I beg to differ. While in

Vietnam I witnessed many many folks who had zero desire to be there doing much better things than the jail house

dropout types. Often the folks who did not want to be there had some amount of education and did things like teach

English at night on their own time thereby helping enormously with our relations with the Vietnamese people.



Less than stellar folks can learn however but it's best to have people who already can think on their two

feet available.

If we follow your line of reasoning Bio perhaps we should be recruiting from the pool of

those with less than normal IQs, after all, why not let them die instead of someone like yourself who can contribute

to our society by not being in the military.