Feel a draft?
InfoGuy123
Pelican
want to use it as a political tool against their counterparts than anything.
Bob McKellar
Pelican wrote:
> It's disgusting. This (small) "push" is driven far more by politicians who
> want to use it as a political tool against their counterparts than anything.
It's not disgusting, it's a perfectly reasonable tactic to propose legislation
to make a point, even if the proposed law has no chance of passing. This is
done by legislators of all stripes. For example, draconian anti-abortion laws
are always being proposed to give an opportunity for their sponsors to make
speeches.
For a trivial but useful example, one of the local state reps in my area was
concerned by the baggers at her grocery store licking their fingers to get
traction on the plastic bags. She introduced legislation barring the practice.
Nothing happened in the legislature, of course, but she got a lot of publicity
and moistening sponges suddenly showed up at all the checkout stands!
Whether or not you agree with the idea of reinstating the draft ( I don't ),
thinking about it does bring up a lot of interesting issues.
Bob McKellar
Henry J. Cobb
Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ.
If you want to stop the draft then you need to register and vote Republican, no?
-HJC
James Anatidae
news:20030301021110...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/876678.asp?vts=022720031000&cp1=1
I find it interesting that Marine Corps' number of personal has remained
very steady for around 50 years (expect for a small spike during Vietnam)
while the other services have much more dramatic ups and downs. I'm not
really sure of the meaning of it, though.
--
Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/frontdoor.html
Brad Meyer
Heck, it was a Republican who was the first to conscript troops for
the US Army.
FWIW, I think the notion of a draft is looney in the extreme. If we
fight a war of sufficient duration that conscripts can be inducted,
trained, and make it to the front, we will have essentially "lost" no
matter what the outcome on the field of battle is. Weapons systems and
combat doctrine today are too complex to be quickly mastered by
volunteers who are well motivated, much less draftees who are likely
less so.
Michael P. Reed
> On 1 Mar 2003 22:12:13 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >I think the lesson here is very very clear.
> >
> >Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ.
> >
> >If you want to stop the draft then you need to register and vote
> Republican, no?
>
> Heck, it was a Republican who was the first to conscript troops for
> the US Army.
To be pedantic, for the "US Army" yes, but conscription was first used for the
Continental Army (from whence sprang the former), and there were neither
republicans or democrats then.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Henry J. Cobb
> I find it interesting that Marine Corps' number of personal has remained
> very steady for around 50 years (expect for a small spike during Vietnam)
> while the other services have much more dramatic ups and downs. I'm not
> really sure of the meaning of it, though.
Even global warming hasn't changed the total length of coastline in
the world that much.
-HJC
SFB
198K in 1985 and 171K today. 27K or 14%.
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Frequently_Requested/End_Streng
th.htm
"Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:19c84c65.03030...@posting.google.com...
John 14 15-21
Am going to against the tide of opinion. There will be no draft because of the
coming war with Iraq, but there might be one to maintain the occupation.
A long term occupation of Iraq will require alot of troops and rotation. The
U.S. Army is all ready thin considering the missions it must carry.
You add possible war in Korea...
The draft might even be an easy sell after 9/11.
Am against a draft, but if things continue as they are; it might very well
happen.
The U.S. is in a very big mess. I believe that the coming war with Iraq will in
the long run make things much worse.
Although in the short frame of reference it might make things seem better.
You need lots of troops if your going to be "World Policeman."
The people who hate us with a passion continues to grow.
Talking, trade, with pressure, seems to work. Isolation or pure military
solutions over the long run historically seem to back fire.
----------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
"The Gospel is about what God has done for us and what we
can become in Christ; it's about a relationship with Christ being
the answer to our deepest needs. The Good News offers lost people
what they are frantically searching for: forgiveness, freedom, security,
purpose, love, acceptance, and strength. It settles our past, assures
our future, and gives meaning to today. It is the best news in the WORLD."
-----Pastor Rick Warren
Page 224, The Purpose Driven Church, Copyright 1995, ISBN 0-310-20106-3
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
Outstanding Bible Teaching online: Thru the Bible Radio.
Multiple Bible Translations including non English.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith, a sure hope, a perfect charity."
----St Francis of Assisi
-
For the Faith and Spiritual beliefs of Col. Rick Husband, Columbia Space
Shuttle Commander, and Payload Commander Lt Col. Michael Anderson go here:
http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/1183788.html
Mathematics do not lie. For an outstanding Statistical Analysis of why
Evolution is false and that the prophecies of God's Holy Prophets are true.
See the following book:
Title : A Skeptic's search for God.
Subtitle: Convincing evidence for his existence.
By Ralph O. Muncaster
ISBN 0-7369-0452-2
Copyright 2002.
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, Oregon 97402.
-
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
BF Lake
"John 14 15-21" <thena...@aol.comsec> wrote
> Am going to against the tide of opinion. There will be no draft because
of the
> coming war with Iraq, but there might be one to maintain the occupation.
>
> A long term occupation of Iraq will require alot of troops and rotation.
The
> U.S. Army is all ready thin considering the missions it must carry.
>
they could do it with the Royal Air Force. You fly around in a R5 bi-plane
and machine-gun locals on horseback whenever they get in groups of more than
say, 10, heading off anywhere. This keeps the locals from getting anything
going.
Sort of like "enforcing the No Fly Zone" only more exciting.
Regards,
Barry
John 14 15-21
LOL. The same thing happened in Afghanistan I believe post WW1.
To this very day the Afghans celebrate their "freedom" from Britain. How much
better off they would have been if they had become a colony.
Maybe this time around they will see the R5's and take a lesson from the movie
" The Mouse That Roared" i.e. declare war on the U.S. and lose and then just
watch the money roll in. At least thats the way it was supposed to go.
Besides, the R5 industry needs a shot in the arm. ;)
------------------------------
Henry J. Cobb
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/876678.asp?vts=022720031000&cp1=1
"The other tradition has been an ongoing opposition to conscription by
pacifists, libertarians, and opponents of particular wars."
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_019500_conscription.htm
Now these are the people who are CALLING for conscription.
-HJC
Roger Fleming
> >BF Lake" nos...@nospam.com wrote:
[...]
> >No sweat. The British faced the same problem in Iraq post -WW1 and found
> >they could do it with the Royal Air Force. You fly around in a R5 bi-plane
> >and machine-gun locals on horseback whenever they get in groups of more than
> >say, 10, heading off anywhere. This keeps the locals from getting anything
> >going.
> >
> >Sort of like "enforcing the No Fly Zone" only more exciting.
> LOL. The same thing happened in Afghanistan I believe post WW1.
Not exactly. In fact, no. If you are counting the North-West
Territories as Afghanistan, then they didn't return to Afghan control
between the wars or indeed ever. If you aren't counting the NW
Territories, then it didn't happen.
By 1919 the ancient region of Afghanistan was partitioned into the
modern country of Afghanistan and the Indian Raj's NW Territories, now
part of Pakistan. Afghanistan itself was pretty well independant and
had been for many years; there were no British troops there, and
certainly no biplanes randomly strafing. In 1919 a new king took power
in Afghanistan (as a result of the assassination of his father,
probably by himself) and encouraged a rebellion in the NW Territories.
Despite the Indian Army being largely still in Europe (there were only
two cavalry regiments and eight battalions in the whole continent)
this rebellion was quickly and ruthlessly suppressed, mainly by
Ghurkas under Brig. Dyer. Indeed it was suppressed so ruthlessly that
there was a public outcry and Dyer was sacked! A small punitive
expedition over the Khyber Pass extracted the Treaty of Rawalpindi, in
which each party basically recognises the other's borders, and the
British cease subsidies to the Afghan government.
> To this very day the Afghans celebrate their "freedom" from Britain.
[...]
The bulk of Afghanistan has never actually been ruled by Britain. The
British attempted to install a puppet ruler in 1839 (after 40 years of
Afghani civil war, and wars with several neighbouring states) but that
ended disastrously with the infamous retreat from Kabul in 1842. Note
that this was over 160 years ago! The part they did rule, the NW
Territories (captured in a minor action in 1859 and the Second Afghan
War 1878-1880), never regained independance, except as part of
Pakistan. Likewise Afghan territories captured by the Russians in the
nineteenth century have also never been returned.
Cheers,
Roger
Brad Meyer
If conscription was used (and I can find no record of it) then it must
have been at the state level, because the Contenental COngress did not
have the authority to do so.
Samuel Jahaza Howard
> FWIW, I think the notion of a draft is looney in the extreme. If we
> fight a war of sufficient duration that conscripts can be inducted,
> trained, and make it to the front, we will have essentially "lost" no
> matter what the outcome on the field of battle is. Weapons systems and
> combat doctrine today are too complex to be quickly mastered by
> volunteers who are well motivated, much less draftees who are likely
> less so.
Except that you may need occupation forces for years. Also, drafts
sometimes are used in peacetime to build up force for future
conflicts. That gives more time for training.
Sam Howard
Tom Schoene
> remained very steady for around 50 years (expect for a small spike
> during Vietnam) while the other services have much more dramatic ups
> and downs. I'm not really sure of the meaning of it, though.
Very simple. Good political work by the Marines immediately after WW2.
The National Security Act of 1947 specifies a minimum force structure for
the Marine Corps -- no less than three divisions. The Marines are the only
service to have this requirement written into the Act. That means they are
the only service that can point to a legal requirement for their manpower
levels when there's a drawdown going on. OTOH, this also makes it harder
for them to argue for a significant increase when DoD is expanding, because
they've (arguably) kept a larger slice of the pie than they should have in
the lean times.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
John 14 15-21
Roger, thanks for the great history lesson. That Afghanistan has never been
ruled as a whole by anybody is pretty well known.
The fact is that Afghans do celebrate the independence achieved from Britain
post WW1.
Bi-planes were used in Afghanistan as stated.
Britain tried for a very long time to subdue Afghanistan and failed.
My post to Barry was not meant to be a history lesson. Barry's post was one of
dry humor on the idea of occupation of Iraq.
My reply was in the same vain. Afghanistan and Iraq are very current events.
God Bless you :)
------------------------------------
_G-O-D-S ... C-R-E-A-T-O-R_
Thus Spake God's Creator;
High Tech WMD's !!
The methods of warfare has changed.
Men are no longer needed, because bunching up
a lot of soldiers in one place is just plain stupid.
Carpet bombing, Biological and Chemical WMD's are
now directed at civilians to win wars.
Ti's called... progress.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOD'S CREATOR
The BIG BANG! was another one of God's accidents... Not mine !
Today's Terrorists News:
http://www.antiwar.com/
Today's U.S. Terrorists:
http://www.dbr.nu/noin/rogues.html
Brad Meyer
<sh0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Brad Meyer wrote:
>> FWIW, I think the notion of a draft is looney in the extreme. If we
>> fight a war of sufficient duration that conscripts can be inducted,
>> trained, and make it to the front, we will have essentially "lost" no
>> matter what the outcome on the field of battle is. Weapons systems and
>> combat doctrine today are too complex to be quickly mastered by
>> volunteers who are well motivated, much less draftees who are likely
>> less so.
>
>Except that you may need occupation forces for years.
Congress will never approve a draft for such a purpose, if fo no other
reason then the expense incurred would be huge. They cannot afford an
army that is both huge and hi tech. They demonstrated as much in the
Viet Nam years.
>Also, drafts
>sometimes are used in peacetime to build up force for future
>conflicts. That gives more time for training.
On the day congress passes a peace time draft there will be pork in
the tree tops.
Rev Prez
news:20030301021110...@mb-fr.aol.com:
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/876678.asp?vts=022720031000&cp1=1
That's MSNBC for you. Find any two "experts" for the opposing viewpoint to
allocate Charlie Rangel's off the range nonsense a measure of credibility.
If I hadn't met the man I might mistake him for a deviously cunning breed
of Democrat. You know, the kind who views America through such a cynical,
racialist lens that he'd institute a draft to make sure that the wars the
country undertakes are primarily small, low op tempo brushfires that
require only the (predominantly Caucasian) Special Forces.
Rev Prez
Michael P. Reed
Yes, but the army itself was raised by the states, not by Congress, which only
could assign quotas, and not do the actual constitution. Some states ignored
the quotas. Maryland refused to raise an eighth regiment, and Georgia
attempted to raise four as opposed to her quota of one (not enough slots in a
single regiment for all the local big wigs). Conscription itself was then not
in use as a term. What happened was that the states would draft from the
militia (and remember pretty much everyone, save certain exempt persons was in
the militia) to make up the difference. Usually it was only for terms of a
year. Connecticut kept her battalions pretty well filled in this manner,
whereas the much much larger Virginia (especially with TJ as Gov) refused to do
so with the effect that the the Virginia Line declined in size until by the
time it marched into captivity at Charleston it could muster but three
understrength provisional regiments (down from sixteen).
Peter D Rieden
> InfoGuy123 <infog...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030301021110...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/876678.asp?vts=022720031000&cp1=1
>
> I find it interesting that Marine Corps' number of personal has remained
> very steady for around 50 years (expect for a small spike during Vietnam)
> while the other services have much more dramatic ups and downs. I'm not
> really sure of the meaning of it, though.
Perhaps that events may come and go, but the number of dumb grunts per head of
population remains roughly the same?
:-)
PDR
Peter D Rieden
> news:20030301021110...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/876678.asp?vts=022720031000&cp1=1
>
> I find it interesting that Marine Corps' number of personal has remained
> very steady for around 50 years (expect for a small spike during Vietnam)
> while the other services have much more dramatic ups and downs. I'm not
> really sure of the meaning of it, though.
Perhaps because the USMC, as a long-term user of Harrier aircraft, are clearly
an organisation of sound judgement and dependable values, so they're THE place
to be if the smelly stuff hits the ventilator...
:-)
PDR
Spread Eagle
> FWIW, I think the notion of a draft is looney in the extreme. If we
> fight a war of sufficient duration that conscripts can be inducted,
> trained, and make it to the front, we will have essentially "lost" no
> matter what the outcome on the field of battle is. Weapons systems and
> combat doctrine today are too complex to be quickly mastered by
> volunteers who are well motivated, much less draftees who are likely
> less so.
Regardless of how "hi-tech" the military becomes, there will always be
a need for lo-tech cannon fodder, and not just in the Army, in all of
the branches.
The draft is bad for another reason. It only works in periods when
the population at large is overwhelmingly behind the military
adventure in question, such as WWII (it's kind of strange, because
that's when voluntary enlistments go throught the roof too). I
believe that the draft remained in place continuously to one degree or
another up until the end of Nixon's administration, few questioned it
at first, but by 1970 it widely hated. If the war isn't popular with
the masses, the draft becomes the focus of the debate. That would be
the case today in this Iraq thing too, and imposing the draft would
fuel anti-war activism, like throwing gasoline on fire.
Spread Eagle
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>Brad Meyer <brad...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<lot36v0uj8t080mjp...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> FWIW, I think the notion of a draft is looney in the extreme. If we
>> fight a war of sufficient duration that conscripts can be inducted,
>> trained, and make it to the front, we will have essentially "lost" no
>> matter what the outcome on the field of battle is. Weapons systems and
>> combat doctrine today are too complex to be quickly mastered by
>> volunteers who are well motivated, much less draftees who are likely
>> less so.
>
>Regardless of how "hi-tech" the military becomes, there will always be
>a need for lo-tech cannon fodder, and not just in the Army, in all of
>the branches.
Rather the opposite. The American people have made it clear that they
will spend a lot of money in peacetime so as not to have to resort to
connon fodder in wartime. The people, and the congress they control
(when they choose to exert themselves) will not stand for US
citizen-soldiers being used as cannon fodder. They will not even
accept "normal wastage". Maybe, as a people, we will eventually
become so far removed from Viet Nam that we will forget its lessons,
but I do not expect it in my lifetime.
Jack Love
wrote:
The latest future-soldier gear and training certainly support this.
The US 'grunt' of nearby tomorrow will use about $80000 of technology
to make sure that he's vastly superior to the other guy's
cannon-fodder. For those who think our smart weapons are great, the
real surprise will be when they come up against our ground troops, if
they ever have that misfortune.
Spread Eagle
> >Rather the opposite. The American people have made it clear that they
> >will spend a lot of money in peacetime so as not to have to resort to
> >connon fodder in wartime. The people, and the congress they control
> >(when they choose to exert themselves) will not stand for US
> >citizen-soldiers being used as cannon fodder. They will not even
> >accept "normal wastage". Maybe, as a people, we will eventually
> >become so far removed from Viet Nam that we will forget its lessons,
> >but I do not expect it in my lifetime.
> >
>
> The latest future-soldier gear and training certainly support this.
> The US 'grunt' of nearby tomorrow will use about $80000 of technology
> to make sure that he's vastly superior to the other guy's
> cannon-fodder. For those who think our smart weapons are great, the
> real surprise will be when they come up against our ground troops, if
> they ever have that misfortune.
Yes, yes, you are both correct **as far as you go.** I was in the
Navy, so I can't speak for the Army (but I suspect that what I have to
say is true at least to some degree there too), but someone has to
clean the heads, swab the decks, cook the meals, clean up afterwards,
chip and paint the hull, hoist the lines, and, one of my favorites,
give the top of the mast a fresh water washdown at sea, and a million
other such tasks, and they aren't done by rated personnel (E-4 and
above), and they certainly aren't done by rated personnel in technical
ratings.
Spread Eagle
Matthew G. Saroff
I think a draft is more likely than one would thing.
While Rumsfeld may see them as "worthless" in the modern
high tech army, they would be suitable for an occupation force,
and some quick math says that somewhere between 100K and 400K
troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.
That doesn't require an "army of one", you just need an
adequately trained guy with his weapon. In fact, he might do
better, as he could be trained specifically to occupation duties.
--
--Matthew Saroff
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>Yes, yes, you are both correct **as far as you go.** I was in the
>Navy, so I can't speak for the Army (but I suspect that what I have to
>say is true at least to some degree there too), but someone has to
>clean the heads, swab the decks, cook the meals, clean up afterwards,
>chip and paint the hull, hoist the lines, and, one of my favorites,
>give the top of the mast a fresh water washdown at sea, and a million
>other such tasks, and they aren't done by rated personnel (E-4 and
>above), and they certainly aren't done by rated personnel in technical
>ratings.
In large part they either are not done at all or they are done by
civilians in-port. Much the same for the other services. That is a
large reason the manning levels are down, and a big part of why a GT
powered CG hull with 30 odd snipes looks like a far better deal then a
nuke powered CGN hull of the same displacement with maybe three times
as many snipes. The sorts of things you are talking about started
winding down at the same time sailors started being paid enough to no
longer be the cheapest commodity on the ship.
Alan Minyard
wrote:
>Jack Love <jackx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6a3b6v02drr9rhbmf...@4ax.com>...
The USN is currently looking at pre-cooked, pre-packaged meals, having
painting, etc done by contractors. Cleaning requirements have been
lessened by the use of new materials (for decks, etc).
Al Minyard
Howard Berkowitz
aminy...@netdoor.com wrote:
,
>
> The USN is currently looking at pre-cooked, pre-packaged meals, having
> painting, etc done by contractors. Cleaning requirements have been
> lessened by the use of new materials (for decks, etc).
>
> Al Minyard
Is there no concern that paint might not be mistaken for soup?
vincent Brannigan
>
> > The USN is currently looking at pre-cooked, pre-packaged meals, having
> > painting, etc done by contractors. Cleaning requirements have been
> > lessened by the use of new materials (for decks, etc).
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Is there no concern that paint might not be mistaken for soup?
The paint is perhaps tastier?
Vince
Ryan Maves
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-C954CF.1...@text.giganews.com...
> > The USN is currently looking at pre-cooked, pre-packaged meals, having
> > painting, etc done by contractors. Cleaning requirements have been
> > lessened by the use of new materials (for decks, etc).
>
Interesting that you would say that. I had to take care of several patients
on cruise who had eaten some hamburgers that tasted "funny". Apparently one
of the cooks had planned to put some Italian-style salad dressing in the
meat during preparation to spice up the burgers a bit, but he accidentally
grabbed a bottle of similar-appearing "all-purpose cleaner". No one was hurt
or seriously ill, although the one guy who kept eating the burger even
though it tasted off was a bit queasier than before.
Ryan Maves, M.D.
Flight Surgeon, Carrier Air Wing SEVENTEEN
Howard Berkowitz
<rcm...@attbi.com> wrote:
There's a classic toxicology story by Hoffman, "Eleven Blue Men", in
which salt shakers in a low-end restaurant were accidentally filled with
sodium nitrite. No one noticed at the time of ingestion.
Paul J. Adam
Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> writes
>There's a classic toxicology story by Hoffman, "Eleven Blue Men", in
>which salt shakers in a low-end restaurant were accidentally filled with
>sodium nitrite. No one noticed at the time of ingestion.
For the non-poisoners among us, what happened?
--
Paul J. Adam
Howard Berkowitz
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody noticed a different in taste (nitrites are used in sausage
making). Some died and some survived, but the title comes from the
distinct blue coloration taken on by the skins of the victims, as the
nitrites combined nastily with hemoglobin.
The story deals with the public health investigation of how it had all
happened -- pretty much carelessness and stupidity.
Earl
news:Hjq$OS3fOl...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
Nitrite poisoning. Nitrites are great oxygen scavengers, being
converted to nitrates -- thus use as preservatives. (Blue color
is indication of oxygen starvation in humans -- often seen with
Carbon monoxide and cyanide poisoning)
Not exactly something that an oxygen breathing animal needs.
Paul J. Adam
writes
>
>Nitrite poisoning. Nitrites are great oxygen scavengers, being
>converted to nitrates -- thus use as preservatives. (Blue color
>is indication of oxygen starvation in humans -- often seen with
>Carbon monoxide and cyanide poisoning)
>
>Not exactly something that an oxygen breathing animal needs.
Ta muchly to you and Howard.
--
Paul J. Adam