The Definition of Irony

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

Rogue - please sit down - I'm going to say something that will shock you!

Here it is: I agree with you. Okay, you can relax now.

Technically, there is a fund. Hence my previous post. Problem is: it's been looted. That's why I mentioned O'Neill as you did also. And you're quite right - it's been pillaged for a long time. Bilaterally, too. I went into this in great detail in the long Economics thread.

(As I pick myself up off the floor)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

When I see ridiculous comments by Kerry, trust me, I'll post 'em.

Ah---but will you ever see them?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Kerry scare tactic:
Social Security will be scraped, starving senior citizens
The global community doesn't like us
Enter popular environmental concern here and add Bush wants to kill you

You forgot:

Your sons and daughters and possibly you are going to be drafted!

You're going to be robbed to line the pockets of the wicked rich!

You're going to be condemned to a life of unemployment and penury by outsourcing!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by achilleus

As for being scared of terrorism. I'm not. I have a greater chance of being run over by a car than I do of getting killed in terrorist attack.

After having spent one week in the town of Kos, Greece, I am inclined to believe you. (Insert appropriate smiley here)

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[telkanuru]

This is probably not worth my time/effort to say, but

1) Social security is in flames and twitching- true
2) Global community dosn't like us- true
3) Bush == (good for the environment)^(-1)- true
4) Draft is moving towards reinstatement- true
5) The great trend in manufacturing is towards outsourcing- true
6) The rich are raping the poor- true

ALSO

1) Iraq was in league with al-quaida- False
2) The terror alert system has been useful for something other than scaring people- False
3) Bush hasn't been insisting that the terrorists will win if kerry is elected- False
4) Terrorists are EVERYWHERE- False (McCarthy anyone?)
5) The UN is a bad thing- False
6) John Kerry advocates socialized medicine on a european system- False

Eh?

[MHS Fencer]

To be fair the draft is not actively moving toward reinstatement - it can be argued (as Krugman did in his column several days (weeks?) ago) that the circumstances we have created require stronger military forces and that the only way to increase the size of the army is a draft. That said, nobody really wants it and it would only be implemented as an act of desperation - but we just might get to those desperate times. I guess I'd call this "passively moving in the general direction of a draft" - but it's really unpopular (especially among military leaders who know that it would shoot morale to sh!t)

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by MHS Fencer

To be fair the draft is not actively moving toward reinstatement - it can be argued (as Krugman did in his column several days (weeks?) ago) that the circumstances we have created require stronger military forces and that the only way to increase the size of the army is a draft. That said, nobody really wants it and it would only be implemented as an act of desperation - but we just might get to those desperate times. I guess I'd call this "passively moving in the general direction of a draft" - but it's really unpopular (especially among military leaders who know that it would shoot morale to sh!t)

I have posted before that there are

---> RUMORS <---

to the effect that there will be a draft if Bush is reelected. Personally, I doubt it. I think that the outcry will be too huge. Unlike the Vietnam generation, where the adults had either fought in World War Two or Korea, and were extremely unsympathetic, in this generation, our parents are often extremely anti-draft as well.

This is especially true with women in jeopardy, and no colledge deferments for the rich kids, so EVERYONE will be affected, and feel the need to protest. If he reinstates the draft, Bush might (maybe) be risking impeachment.

[telkanuru]

Actually, the executive branch has quietly re-filled the draft boards across the country.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

After having spent one week in the town of Kos, Greece, I am inclined to believe you.

Egad, is the driving in Greece still as bad as that? It was horrifying when I was there 20 years ago, one would hope that there had been some improvement...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Actually, the executive branch has quietly re-filled the draft boards across the country.

Source?

( plus additional characters )

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Actually, the executive branch has quietly re-filled the draft boards across the country.

Not really. It's that most positions have been coming empty since around 1999 or so (20 year positions--started in 1979), and they are being refilled in the ordinary course of the selective-service system.

It's not like positions have been unfilled from the 80's.

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Source?

( plus additional characters )

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/draft-boards.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-service_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3242923.stm

links from
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001038.html
which I hope is conservative enough for the board.

[Inquartata]

The blog may be conservative, but the draft discussion seems to be coming from an anti-Bush liberal trolling it.

Thanks for the news cites, though, even if it does seem a bit of a stretch to go from "About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms as unpaid board members. Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999. That means hiring replacements has been going on for several years" to inferring that a new draft is just around the corner.

[telkanuru]

Things!

1) "The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."

The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.

Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.

Despite those explanations, the public notice by the Pentagon marked the first formal request to re-establish draft boards since the draft was abolished in1973."

2) "The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States."

3) "In an added twist, the Army announced that soldiers in every unit designated for deployment to Iraq next year -- whether active duty or reserve -- will be prohibited from leaving the service during a period beginning 90 days before their departure to 90 days after they return."

4) "Thirty years have passed since the draft boards last exerted their hold on America, deciding which soldiers would be sent to Vietnam. After Congress ended the draft in 1973, they have become largely dormant."

That's 30, not 20.

5) "(unsurprisingly, none of the major papers or networks in the US covered it)"

[Philistine]

Take a look at this Snopes article, which contains some of the material above, generally debunking it. Snopes is not exactly known for it's right wing tilt.

A draft cannot be reinstated by the President, but requires cogressional approval. So far the only congressional proposals to reinstate the draft (introduced by Democrats, incidently) have been resoundingly defeated.

Much ado about nothing.

Now--does Bush's foreign policy make it more likely that the US will find itself in a position where a draft may become necessary or desirable--that's a whole different kettle of fish, and one about which reasonable people can disagree. But is Bush trying to reinstute the draft now, or in the immediate future--IMHO that's tinfoil hat material.

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

"Claim: The U.S. military will be reinstating the draft by Spring 2005. "

Don't you love conditionals? I do. And the dems want the draft 'cause they think that some rich people's sons should be dying for our country, instead of just the poor ones.

Tinfoil hat? Yes. Paranoia is only good sense when someone's out to get you, to quote a friend.

[Inquartata]

Heh, dude, you're criticizing the information from a news report you yourself cited?

Let us deconstruct the passage:

About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms

That's terms, not years since the draft went into abeyance.

as unpaid board members. Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999.

The term thus ended in 1999, or after 20 years.

That means hiring replacements has been going on for several years

Seems pretty innocuous to me.

Perhaps if we apply it to circumstances less inherently sinister to those inclined to Bush paranoia?

Intel hired a crop of engineers in 1979. They are now retiring after finishing their 20-year careers. Intel puts an ad in the paper to hire a new crop of engineers to replace the ones retiring.

Or think of the people ( unpaid, not actually doing any work ) as goods rather than employees. You bought canned goods for an emergency food supply 5 years ago. It has now reached its expiration date. You buy a new stock to replace it. Does that mean there must be actual emergency coming?

[telkanuru]

If you read what I posted, you noticed the gov't started letting draft boards fall by the wayside in 1973, and there was therefore certainly no drive for members in 1979. The excuse seems convenient and flawed.

Also, I did not attack something I cited, I attacked something Phillistine cited.

Last, it's all nice for you to be complacient and condecending towards my paranoia about the draft; I don't suppose you're exactly draftable age. Things are slightly different on my side of the fence.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

"Claim: The U.S. military will be reinstating the draft by Spring 2005. Don't you love conditionals? I do. "

Spring of 2005 is 5 months away. Not going to happen.

And the dems want the draft 'cause they think that some rich people's sons should be dying for our country, instead of just the poor ones.

Which dems want the draft? Only 2 voted for it. The vote in the house of representatives was 402 to 2. Story

Tinfoil hat? Yes. Paranoia is only good sense when someone's out to get you, to quote a friend.

Good sense is also knowing when a threat is realistic. At this time, congressional support for a draft is nil. Popular support for a draft is nil. What is tinfoil hat material, IMHO, is the thought that somehow the president is planning to reinstate a draft, and is surreptitiously working to implement it. it just isn't happening. On the timing (from the Snopes Article cited in my post above):

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

"It will take 193 days from the time that we get started until the first person is presented to the Department of Defense," said Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service. It would then take a year and a half to two years to train the draftees and form them into new combat units, Krepinovich said.

--Philistine