is a draft imminent?

[Sigma]

What does being a

Texan have to do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather

offensive.

Agreed. Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so

caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy stereotype is beyond me.

[belgareth]

Agreed. Texas is

one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy

stereotype is beyond me.

Moving to Texas was quite a cultural shock for me after living in

ultra-liberal, open-minded California for so many years. For all the high minded idealistic noises they made in

California I see less bigotry, both overt and covert, and far greater diversity here than I ever saw in California.

The majority here just don't care what color you are, they have a much greater live and let live attitude. In my

own opinion it is a result of not having equality shoved down their throats. There's no resentment built up here

over it. People in California seemed to be so busy proving they didn't care that they never had time to actually

made the time to get to know those other kinds of people.

[koolking1]

"No. Our all-volunteer

armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about

whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my

country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can

do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often about the need for

our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the military?

I could have taken you to

task to explain what I find is a lack of accurate historical information but will just ask that you explain this

statement (for the moment, I may have more questions later).

here's what I want to you to explain please:



"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar

fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very definitive statement on

your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am curious.

[Biohazard]

"No. Our

all-volunteer armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft.

It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service

on behalf of my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you.

Ask what you can do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often

about the need for our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the

military?

No, I am not in the military as I mentioned in my first post here. Although I have

considered the route my brother has taken when I am done with my current work. He is applying his engineering

skills to the design of weapons systems for the Air Force. With my particular skills, I'd guess I'd be working in

biological/chemical research as an officer. Right now I think I'm doing good by working in the civilian medical

research sector.

My feelings have not changed. If situations were grave enough whereby a draft is

indeed needed -- which is not at the current momemt, although you disagree -- and I am selected, I would not resist.

"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range

of first strike mortar fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very

definitive statement on your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am

curious.

North Korea has not been bashful about "re-uniting" the Korean people under communist rule.

Any action in the Korean peninsula would be initiated by a first strike by the North Koreans, which appeared more

likely 7 months ago but not now. Having American ground personel survive the first encounter would be important in

coordinating a counter-offensive. If a war did break out in Korea, it think it would still not require a draft. I

think nukes would be dropped on NK and it would be over before it really even gets started.

I'd be happy to

answer any more questions. This is an interesting discussion.

[koolking1]

October 4, 2005 latimes.com

: National News Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size

THE NATION
Army to Lower Bar

for Recruits
By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer


"WASHINGTON — Facing recruiting shortages brought on

by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near

the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.

Coming off a recruiting year

in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced

that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the

16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential

military personnel.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting

class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might

dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch.

The continuing violence in Iraq has made the

Army's annual mission to bolster its ranks especially difficult in recent months. The Army fell nearly 7,000

recruits short of its goal for the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Friday. Army officials have said that recruiters

might be faced with an even bigger challenge during the current fiscal year.

Harvey insisted that the Army

was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each

military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.

Yet one Army official said that the policy

change is also a concession to reality. The Army failed to meet its benchmark for 2005, and decided to widen the

pool of recruits it could target during the 2006 fiscal year. The Army official spoke on condition of anonymity

because the 2005 recruiting figures would not be formally announced until next week.

Before being admitted

into the military, a potential recruit takes a group of tests known as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery. The recruits fall into categories based on their performance on the aptitude tests.

Harvey said he

saw no reason why the Army standards should be more stringent than Pentagon guidelines, and pointed out that the

Army already allows more Category IV troops to join the National Guard than it does the active duty

ranks.

"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a

straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines,"

he said.

Harvey spoke to reporters during a convention of the Assn. of the U.S. Army, a private organization

that supports active duty and reserve soldiers.

Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's

requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th

percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense

Department benchmarks.

The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting

recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each

service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.

Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems

staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV

recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.

The Army's recruiting problems have

become more pressing as the violence in Iraq has intensified, scaring potential recruits away. Recruiters in 2005

accepted more individuals whom they might have rejected previously.

Harvey denied Monday that the Army was in

the midst of a recruiting crisis, pointing to a series of new initiatives — including increasing the Army's

advertising budget by $130 million and putting 3,000 more recruiters on the streets — that he hoped would reverse

the downward trend."

Sounds to me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

[Biohazard]

Sounds to

me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

There's always been a call for a

few good men to enlist in the military, since the founding of this country. Every president, from Washington to

GWB, has felt that military service is an honorable career option for our nation's youth.

Falling

short of recruiting goals doesn't mean a draft is coming. I doubt there is even one general who would welcome a

draft, much less the rank and file soldiers who's backs should rightly be covered by someone who wants to be on the

front lines. A draft would weaken the effectiveness of the armed forces IMO, and I do not see how that would

improve the "morality" among the men and women who serve, as you seemed to have implied.

I think a

large part of recruiting shortages is the result of selective negative reporting by the media. If 99.99% of the

soldiers carry out their duties with honor, then 99.99% of the news stories should focus on the good work that is

being done. I'm not saying that bad deeds ought to be covered up, but one must really question the sensationalist

mentality of the media in what it chooses to focus on. Surely, one has plenty of material to use to bash the

current administration without having to use our servicemen and women as tools for a political

agenda.

Anyhow, have you decided to use a third party mediator to make the payout?