Third Party & Independents: Archives

Update: Rep. Duncan appeared on Washington Journal on C-span in the same chair his critic did yesterday and defended himself against claims of saving face or covering up something. He stated that he is getting language put in the bill that “respects and will not abrogate” the chain of command of the military. Sounds good. But the fact remains, there was nothing in the Intel Bill that would have disrespected or abrogated the military’s command and control chain of command from the Pres. to the Sec’t. of Defense to the theater commanders.

It is clear he has made a huge ado about nothing and is making as big ado to cover the nothing up. It was neat to hear him respond to my comments made in this article yesterday, though.

Technically, Congress passed a bill to retain reserves past their initial term.
It’s in the fine print somewhere when people enlist.
But, it’s a hell of a way to thank our troops.
This will allow the government to retain 10000+ troops longer than they expected.

And the pork-barrel spending…
All of Congress is guilty of it, and Bush won’t veto it.
But voters don’t really seem to mind the pork, as long as their state gets some of it.
Voters are more likely to whine and complain about not getting some pork,
or whine and complain about someone else that gets more pork than them(e.g Alaska).

Bringin’ home the pork is how politicians get re-elected. Most people like it.
So, it won’t stop until the U.S. can no longer borrow enough money to continue it.

National Debt
Pork
Problem
:)

I have relatives who could be Drafted if this falls apart.

I say let Bush extend the Reserves forever. As long as nobody gets Drafted, it is fine by me. Besides, most of these Soldiers voted for Bush anyway. Let them reap what they sow.

Ha Ha Ha.

Aldous.

From what I understand, the soldiers are basing their suit on the fact that the recruiters used the slogan, “Try One,” as in try one year, to entice them into signing up, and since the contract in effect said that the one year may be extended at the discretion of the government, the contract amounts to a bait and switch. They were given some consolation, the army told them they are guaranteed to be out by 2031, that much is certain.

First of all, an excellent post by Mr. Remer. I’m sure the draft issue, if not military service in general, is something we will all be hearing much about in the coming years.

Aldous wrote:
“I have relatives who could be Drafted if this falls apart.
I say let Bush extend the Reserves forever. As long as nobody gets Drafted, it is fine by me. Besides, most of these Soldiers voted for Bush anyway. Let them reap what they sow.”

That’s very nice, but how do you KNOW that “most of these Soldiers voted for Bush”? What about those who did not, or those who did but realized the error of their ways and changed their mind?
From what I’ve read, the majority of reservists entered the service (voluntarily) for $$, education, and so forth. They did not really expect to go to a foreign land under dubious circumstances and be shot at.

Besides, what is so inherently “bad” about conscripted service? I see nothing wrong with a citizen being required to serve, let’s say, two years in their country’s military. The military thus develops more of a civilian identity, and definately benefits from a greater variety of individuals, especially educationally.

Now, being drafted into the Army and being sent to fight an illegal war is another thing entirely. And having one’s term of service, whether involuntary (draftee) or voluntary (enlistee) extended indefinately, to continue in an illegal war effort, would certainly be inconvenient, difficult, unpopular and infuriating to many, both to the troops and to their families.

By the way, I served voluntarily in the US Army for three years, back in ‘66-69. I don’t recall the “fine print” in my enlistment contract. Maybe I didn’t read it? I’m sure such “fine print” has changed, in the decades since, to better suit the present day masters of war.

Only an idiot signs something before reading it….

I enlisted into the ANG not long before the Iraq war started. I actually remember signing something that said my service could be extended if needed. It was an individual paper, no fine print or anything like that.
Assuming that the people in question signed similar documents (most enlisted long before I did, so I don’t know), their cases won’t go very far. The military keeps good control over documents. Except the ones for presidential candidates, of course. ;-)
I really don’t see any need for this, though. The military is cutting jobs, but still keeping people past their enlistments? I can’t explain it.

After the mess of the Viet Nam draft, I really don’t see a real draft happening again anytime soon. Things aren’t so bad that we need a draft. That was just propaganda from the election.

The only really fair way to do it would be to have everybody serve a few years upon graduation from high school, which may not be a bad idea. It works pretty well in other countries. No one will ever propose something like that, though.

Escobar, et al:

You guys might have a point about regular mandatory service. It would be much harder to make a war like Iraq popular if everybody were affected by it instead of just those who really need money.

OK. I know this is going to get a lot of opposition.

However, I am not opposed to DRAFT,
but I’m completely opposed to forcible DRAFT,
with threat of incarceration.

Why? How can a nation claim to promote freedom,
and then forcibly strip it from its citizens ?

It seems like a non-sequitur to me.

If the country is going to draft people by force,
perhaps we should first give those persons the
opportunity to permanently leave the U.S. ?
Not to say that is justified either.

And if we are going to draft men, are we going
to draft women also ? What about illegal
citizens that we’ve given driver’s license to?
Perhaps we should draft anyone who happens to
be visiting the U.S. at that time?

And, why do we draft 18 year olds ?
They’re practically children still.
That is VERY young to be forcibly drafted.
Not that DRAFT is ever justified.

Just because something is legal does not mean
it is moral (like abortion).

In most states, 18 is not even old enough to buy
beer, but it’s old enough to be DRAFTED, forced
into battle to kill and die.

The hypocrisy of it all is sickening.

I’m not convinced that ANYONE should ever
have the power to forcibly DRAFT citizens into military service.
Afterall, the government has abused the DRAFT in the past.
Should we allow them to do it again?

It would be better to encourage people to enlist.
Show citizens the respect they deserve, do NOT
force them to do things, but give them valid
reasons and incentives to want to protect their
homeland.

After all, if we really needed about 2 million
additional troops, we could afford to compensate them
handsomely. Let’s see. The government gets
(excluding Social Security) $1 trillion per year
in revenues. Divide half that by 2 million
troops. That’s about $250,000 per year salary.
See…there’s plenty of money.
That would probably get a lot of enlistment
and justified if it’s really important, right?.
But the money is not the point.

And government does not really appreciate the
sacrifice to ever pay troops that much,
especially when they can simply use force via DRAFT. How reveailing.

And, perhaps while we’re at it, perhaps we should
DRAFT people to fill other needed positions, such
as police, nurses, fire fighters, ditch diggers ?
Once you start down that slippery slope, there’s
no place left to go but the bottom.

Also, I don’t think a draft is necessry anyway.
It should never be necessary.
In fact, anyone who thinks it is necessary should raise others’ suspicions.

If the U.S. were at war, service should be
completely voluntary.
And , if enough people do NOT join to defend
their country, then the country deserves to be conquered. That’s the price a nation should pay
for having too many cowards to defend itself.
It government should not have that power over
any individual.

The threat of conquer does NOT justify
the violation of the rights of any person.

And, the DRAFT is a violation that diminishes
peoples desire to volunteer to fight to protect
their own nation. Then, the wealthy would also
realize that they have much to lose also (maybe more).
Should anyone defend a country that forcibly
violates their rights ?

To forcibly DRAFT citizens is a violation
of inalienable human rights, that no one should
have the power to do.

And what if you do NOT believe in the war ?
What if you believe we should not be at war
in IRAQ or Vietnam or Korea or WWII or WW1 ?

Now, some are going to say….OOOhhhh, but the
wealthy will not volunteer. That may be so,
but the wealthy are not the majority of people,
AND the wealthy have already always found clever ways to avoid service anyway.
And some will say, but those avoiding service should be punished.
But, they fail to see that the original premise (the draft) was already flawed.

So, I’m a bit old now, but if the U.S. is in
dire need of troops, I will enlist.

But, I’d like it to be MY idea !

NOT because I’m forcibly DRAFTed.

TheTraveler wrote,
“Only an idiot signs something before reading it….”

Thanks for trying to infer that I am an idiot, friend! Of course I read the damn thing. But young enlistees, being very imressionable, can sometimes overlook the “fine print.”

All joking aside, how can anyone be so sure that there will be no draft?
“… we need a draft. That was just propaganda from the election.” “Things aren’t that bad”.

Now THAT is propaganda if I ever heard it. And if our masters of war continue with their apparent goal of everylasting conflict, our military will definately need more troops!

I agree with Daniel—-individuals could be “encouraged to enlist”. By offering something honest and workable, and some experience one could be proud of later in life.

I still see nothing wrong with compulsory military service. If one is going to live in a “free country”, he, or she, could be reasonably expected to serve in some way—-I hate to say it, but it’s true—-defending one’s freedom.

Expected, but not forced.
And, besides, you don’t want that person
in your fox hole anyway.

thetravler: “I really don’t see a real draft happening again anytime soon.”

the point is that troops are enlisting and then not being alowed to leave when their time is up. would we still NOT need a draft if that was rectified?

This is old hat but I have to say it anyway: By keeping troops longer than they enlisted for or ordering a draft Bush is admitting that he did not properly plan for this war, which is based on the flawed assumption that Iraq was a direct threat to us. Now we’re involved in guerrilla warfare/terrorism with a country that may possibly have wanted to eventually engage in hostile acts against us.

And this furthers the war on terror and protects us how? We have no military capacity to act elsewhere, including on our own soil, and our soldiers are coming back mutilated and maimed.

Why?

Escobar,
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the people bringing up the cases. I’m sorry if you misunderstood.

Saying the situation doesn’t warrant a draft is not propaganda. I was simply stating my opinion.
On the other hand, when Kerry said there would be a draft, it was propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that it isn’t happening and no one in the government is discussing it.
When people stop volunteering to go over there, as so many are bravely doing, then I’ll consider the need for a draft.

Martiniwitz,
“the point is that troops are enlisting and then not being alowed to leave when their time is up. would we still NOT need a draft if that was rectified?”

I’m guessing that this is an internal manpower problem caused by certain branches either not rotating their troops properly, or not putting enough people in leadership positions. Most of these people are being kept on because they are more experienced. Drafting new troops would not solve this particular problem.

The U.S. has over 1.4 million military personnel.
Only 150,000 (soon) in IRAQ.
There’s no shortage of troops.
In 2003, over 250,000 troops were stationed
overseas (excluding IRAQ).
A draft is not needed.

Daniel, there is a reason our public schools don’t teach personal finance or how to manage debt or how to balance a checkbook in K-12. If the majority of tax payers were that saavy about money, they would quickly realize that getting 20 million in pork for their state translates into 20 million times 50 states additional taxes at the end of the year. Those amounts aren’t correct, but, the principle is.

Yep….but it’s actually worse than that.

Because there is waste and inefficiency
in this bureaucracy of nightmare proportions.

Tax payers pay in $X dollars in taxes,
and get back (0.75 * $X). Maybe less.

The government wastes or steals the rest.

Afterall, someone has to pay those cu$hy
multi-million dollar pensions for Congress
and other government dead-weight.

There are now more jobs in government than all
manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

And if I could impart something important to
younger people with home loans and credit card debt….

(1) Pay off those stupid credit cards.
I can’t imagine why anyone but a fool or
someone VERY desparate would borrow on a
high interest credit card.
(2) And pay off those 30 year mortgages in no less than 10 years.
(this can save almost as much as original
cost of the home; make the largest possible
payments as early as possible; because the
interest is front-end loaded)

My wife and I paid off our home in 10 years(instead of 30), which saved enough to
pay for our son’s college education, who graduated this year.

And, after all our stocks and mutual funds
plummeted between 1999 to 2002 (and haven’t recovered yet)
it’s a huge releif that we paid off the home
rather than own more stocks and mutual funds.

Now, if only the federal government could
comprehend these simple ideas.

But, I don’t think most in Congress even know
how many zeros are in $8 trillion.

Daniel, I totally agree. The problem is not the Soc. Sec. program, but, the priorities and lack of fiscal discipline (caused by the way from our system of bribing politically ignorant constituent votes with tax dollar spending) of Congressional incumbents.

In Canada, folks pay a lot more federal taxes, but, they get a lot more for their dollar in services and health care. Americans get the pleasure of paying off investors (40 plus % of which are foreigners) with interest payments on our national debt which returns not a single cent of services or goods from our government. This essentially amounts to transfer payments to wealthy foreign investors, instead of goods and services provided to the American tax payer.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.72 billion per day since September 30, 2003. And we are paying a billion dollars a day in interest on that debt, 400 million of which goes daily to wealthy foreign investors. Those are your and my federal tax dollars Congress is handing out. There is no way Bush is going to cut the deficit in half. I see on conservative sites they are now arguing the dual deficits are actually healthy for America. How much more idioticly blind to basic facts can these people get?

David, you mean legislators are actually reading this blog? Cool!!!

I miised the c span piece.

David, you mean legislators are actually reading this blog? Cool!!!

I missed the c-span piece.

Greg, while it would be flattering, I doubt the Representative was responding to my article, but, to very similar analyses of his behavior from other members of Congress in D.C.

That said, there are a fair number of .gov ISP’s visiting WatchBlog on a regular basis. So, though unlikely, it is possible, the Representative’s staff visit WB and alerted him to the critique. His words of defense used almost verbatim the words I used in the article. Though, I see other journalists observed the same critique.

There are a fair number of .gov ISP’s visiting WatchBlog on a regular basis.

Good. The government can use some new ideas! They’re certainly not coming up with any.

…one has to wonder if the President’s political obligations are interfering with his ‘Commander in Chief defense of the nation’ obligations.

Cripes! Hasn’t that been obvious since his opposition to creating a homeland security agency right after 9/11?