It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Setting US up for the Draft

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:01 PM
seems to me there's more in the air than "smell"!
According to ABC News
the Air National Guard "recruiting" rate is down by 23% (statistics?).
Anyway, now they have created the "stop-loss" effect, which means it
doesn't matter how long you (voluntarily) signed up for,
"you're in the ARMY now"!
IMO this is a way to prepare US, for the impending draft.
I, personally, think it's inevitable.
But, do they have a clue WHY the recruitment figures are down?
Do they know why so many people are "fleeing" to Canada, and
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that so many people, especially young
people, see this war as UN-necessary!
It's a war for oil, and that's it.
It was a war of "choice"!
IMO, it was setup by OUR government, and is propigated by it now.
What do the rest of you think?
What will be next, the closing of the border between the US and Canada, between the US and Mexico??

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:08 PM
I can tell you're new, so I'll lay it out for you.

You are mistaken about three things.

1) When you enlist in the military for four years (for instance), you really sign up for 8 years. 4 years active (or reserve) duty, and 4 years inactive reserve (meaning they can call you back should they need you for that timeframe, or retain you until you are not needed). It is not as simple as that, but you will get the general idea. There is nothing wierd about it at all.

2) Canada would be a fairly stupid place to run even if the draft was in effect. Canada now has a deal to extradite Americans running from the draft.

3) There are bills on the floor right now. Look up the Universal Service Act and you will find some tasty tidbits to feast on. I hope it continues to fail miserably, but never-the-less, it's there.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:13 PM
Actually, what i heard was that soldiers in iraq and afghanistan who were set to RETIRE from service, but they are not being allowed to they are calling up all 124,000 reserve troops at this moment.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:16 PM
A) im not new,
B) obvilusly, you've never been in the military, i have,
you sign up for 6,that's SIX years.
In the Army, Marines, and Air Force, you do 3 inactive, and 3 active,
in the Navy, it's 4 active.
Yes, although, you are discharged, even though you're on the "inactive"
reserve list, you could be called up.
That is perhaps what the govt is basing their use of the "stop-loss" on,
though i don't believe it.
Also, im not talking about people who have only done their 3 active.
I'm talking about people who have been in much longer, want to retire,
or simply leave and are being refused to be allowed to.
I also refer to the fact that once they are "re-enlisted" their new date of
leave is set to something like 2030.
Seems to me that either you may be "new", or simply have been around so long that you now take things for granted.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged!"

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:18 PM
KrazyJethro-Maybe you can clarify the following statements made in this article

"It runs contrary to the whole notion of a volunteer military," said retired Capt. Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger whose service with the Army ended a week ago after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"For an enlisted soldier who signs a predetermined contract for a predetermined period of time, to stay on active duty, I would say it's a breach of contract," he said.

Is the military enlistment contract close ended or are there provisions for retention in time of war? Basically is the guy right?

Also does the military provide for bonus pay for service extended beyond contract end like they do in civil service government contracting?

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:23 PM
I am correct, i was in!
the capt was right, i saw his interview, btw.
It is a "predetermined" contract.
Anytime you enlist, you enlist for 6 years.
Yes, normally, you only do 3 active, except in the case of the Navy,
which i could never understand!
all the time at sea, i guess.
anyway, as for extra pay, yes, when you're in a war zone, you do get
"battle pay", just like paratroppers get what they call "jump pay".
not "battle pay" i believe the correct term is "combat pay".
ill google the requirements and get back here.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:27 PM
Here are two links that may help to clarify things.
then we'll ALL be on the same page.
first The Enlistment Contract
second Combat Pay
actually, while in combat, you're given an extra $150.00 US per month.
(cheap life!)
BTW, I still think the US and the media is setting us up for an impending draft.
legislation is already being passed around congress.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by DarkRain
A) im not new,

Well pardon me, you seemed new. Well, honestly either new or young.

B) obvilusly, you've never been in the military, i have,
you sign up for 6,that's SIX years.
In the Army, Marines, and Air Force, you do 3 inactive, and 3 active,
in the Navy, it's 4 active.

Hmm, that's odd, maybe they made a special exception when I enlisted in the Marine Corps for eight years cheif. Four active and four inactive.

Either or, it doesn't matter.

I'm talking about people who have been in much longer, want to retire,
or simply leave and are being refused to be allowed to.
I also refer to the fact that once they are "re-enlisted" their new date of
leave is set to something like 2030.

Well, as a military man, I'm sure you know that the government retains the right to put you, and generally do with you as the need arises. I'm pretty sure (although I'd have to look and don't have the time) that they are getting bonuses for their extention. All in all I don't find this to be a very big problem.

The only ones it would affect would be enlisted about to retire. Those without enough years to retire would still have the inactive time tacked to the end. Officers have to request to quit and they can be denied for any number of reasons.

It comes down to (and everyone knows it) the need of the service dictates most everything.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:41 PM
Does anyone know when the reservists are going into action, or what the deal is with them? And so I guess, there is already a timeline for when even the reservists wont be enough...I've heard January 2005 but I read the bill for the draft which states that the president will be addressed in March 2005 and then I guess by June 2005 they may start the draft.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:43 PM
This is what I was looking for. The military's "not so fast" clause.

Here's the second thing -- the military may not let you out at the end of your active duty tour. Under a program called "Stop Loss," the military is allowed to prevent you from separating, during times of conflict, if they need your particular warm body. During the first Gulf War (1990), all of the services implemented "Stop Loss,"preventing pretty much anyone from separating, for an entire year. During the Kosovo Campaign, the Air Force instituted "Stop Loss" for those in certain "Shortage" jobs. During Iraq and Afghanistan, The Army, Air Force, and Marines instituted "Stop Loss," again, directed at specific individuals with shortage jobs, or (in the case of the Army), sometimes directed at specific units. The key is, once you join, if there are any conflicts going on, the military can hold you past your normal separation or retirement date.

Sorry if you took offense, it wasn't my intention. My father is a former marine and he would give me a good smack if I ever disrespected a serviceman.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:43 PM
nope, not young either, 48, this month.
and, my apologies, that does apply to the Marines,
after all they are part of The Department of The Navy.
but, if you read,,or listen to the news, you'll learn that it's not just
effecting, or is it affecting, people who are about to retire,
but all enlisted people.
if you are about to be released from service, oh well, too bad,
"stop-loss" applies.
Read This
and though, it would seem from my "date of registration" that i am new to ATS, i've been around it for awhile, i only just decided to participate recently.
mostly because of the way things are going on around me, locally, nationally, globally, and universally.
"For those who have ears to hear, let them ear, and those who have eyes to see; see".
I have been seeing things "change" about me for awhile now.
I knew, when 9/11 happened, that it was the "beginning of the end" for "Freedom", as we knew it.
Other things bother me too, like all the dust that accumulates in my home now. that never happened b4.
like how there are much more dark/grey clouds than before.
the BS the media propigates, and i've known that since i was 19 and in the ASA, privy to an SSO, able to read things that "weren't fit to print".

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:49 PM
no offense taken bleys,
it's hard to offend me anyway, being here in WA,.
im more duck than human

ya know, "rolls like water off a ducks back"!
anyway, the reason i started the thread was because,
I believe that thru the media, which is the norm, we, that is the US
is being setup for the draft.
i dont think we'll be leaving the MidEast anytime soon.
and, with recruitment down, they're gonna have to replace military personnel somehow.
what im wondering is when they'll begin to get to people, like me,
who aren't quite 50 yet, have served, and in their opinion,
"have some good years left"!

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:11 PM
I have to admit that I have signficant concerns over the draft issue. Part of me thinks that two years of volunteer service whether in the military or in public service (for conscientous objectors) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

But mostly I see the problems. There are inherent risks in using unwilling citizens to serve in combat. Would those forces be turned over to the UN for peacekeeping missions?

I guess what it comes down to is the draft should never be used except in cases of National Emergency, i.e. an invasion of this country. When talk of a draft first showed up on this board I wrote my Senator. He indicated that he was aware of the bills, but stated that they would never get out of committee.

I also worry about serviceman your age. As long as the Service has the Stop Loss clause your hands are tied. It's too bad that someone can't use this current conflict as a test case. Does the war in Iraq and the ongoing war on terror reflect the intent of the stop loss definition of "time of war" I know it's a long shot, but anything is possible.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:26 PM
the draft is of concern to me, as well as the current situation, not only in this country, but globally, as well.
as for national emergency, well, that's another story, becuase in a "national emergency", the president, without congressional approval, turns all cops, be they sheriff, hiway patrol, local, game wardens, forest rangers, etc, into a national police force. another scary thought, something to look for, in the event of the next "national tragedy".
but i digress.
as for the war in Iraq. think about what it was intentionally, supposedly to be about.
Freedom for the Iraqis!
and let's think about what was said the other day on meet the press, the US is not "occupiers", but "liberators".
have we liberated anyone in the last ten years, or more?
seems to me we've become occupiers; i,.e. Bosnia, Afghanistan, now Iraq, and even S. Korea, to a certain extent.
but now, were letting go of S Korea, to move troops to Iraq.
besides oil, what IS so important about Iraq.
although it is the "cradle of civilization", as we are supposed to believe.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:42 PM
I remember during the Kosovo War during the Clinton administration, much of the world was upset because they viewed us as the world's police force...for trying to stop what was going on there.
That could have established a precedent in the foreign policy of the US for the Iraqi war...because even Congress passed the war bill with a high amount of approval. mom worked for the UN during Kosovo, but she is so paranoid she won't even tell me about it.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:57 AM
What's wrong with a draft, it is about time the rest of the country starts earning their citizenship instead of always relying on the faithful few volunteers that are always out on the line.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:13 AM
kinslayer, maybe because this is what happened during the last draft:


* Vietnam Veterans: 9.7% of their generation.
* 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam era (August 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975).
* 8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (August 5, 1964 - March 28, 1973).
* 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (January 1, 1965 - March 28, 1973).
* Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.
* Of the 2,6 million, between 1 - 1.6 million (40 - 60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
* 7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.
* Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969).


* Hostile deaths: 47,359.
* Non-hostile deaths: 10,797.
* Total: 58,202 (includes men formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties). Men who have subsequently died of wounds account for the changing total.
* 8 nurses died - 1 was KIA.
* Married men killed: 17,539.
* 61% of the men killed were 21 or younger.
* Highest state death rate: West Virginia - 84.1 men per 100,000 males serving in Vietnam (national average 58.9 men for every 100,000 males serving in Vietnam. [Averaged in 1970]).
* Wounded: 303,704 (153,329 hospitalized + 150,375 injured requiring no hospital care).
* Severely disabled: 75,000--23,214 100% disabled; 5,283 lost limbs; 1,081 sustained multiple amputations. Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300% higher than in WWII and 70% higher than in Korea. Multiple amputations occurred at the rate of 18.4% compared to 5.7% in WWII

* Missing in Action: 2,338.
* POWs: 766 (114 died in captivity).

You can see the whole article HERE

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:21 AM
All I am saying is that defending our country and our way of life is not easy and that it cannot always fall on the few. It is past due to share the burden of defense. Basically freedom is not free of charge and it is time people started paying their dues.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:41 AM
i understand completely.
But, at this point, what are we "defending" from?
What point does a "war of choice" make?
Why must we subject our "soldiers" to death? and..for what?
are we better served having men and women die in Iraq, or elsewhere,
just to promote our brand of "freedom", or should it be for a more worthier cause, like defending our own freedom, here in our own homeland?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:53 AM
To me it seems that we are defending ourselves from some serious islamic fundamentlism, possibly on the global scale. I work in landstuhl where all the wounded and dead come in every single day. i see the ripped and mangled bodies of my friends and fellow soldiers and all i can do is hope that in the end afghanistan and iraq become fully functioning democracies so that the sacrifices were not all in vain. because right now it looks like an agenda for a few people to get rich and piggy back off the common soldier

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in