Hagel (R-Ne) suggests possibility of military draft

Source: Omaha World Herald

BY LESLIE REED

LINCOLN - Speaking today before an audience of Lincoln High School students, U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel warned that the nation may have to turn to compulsory military service "or some kind of draft" to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Questioned after his speech, Hagel said he is not calling for reinstatement of the draft, but the growing difficulty of maintaining an adequate volunteer military force is "a reality."


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)


"I'm just stating the obvious," he said. "At some point we're going to have to made a decision on how to attract a quality force."

Hagel's appearance at Lincoln High School was arranged as part of the "Take a Veteran to School" project sponsored by Time Warner Cable and The History Channel.

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10177959

When the draft comes, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" will finally come to an end as a good percentage of the draft-aged population will have no problem saying they are gay.

opponents of war with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, I hope!

die for bushit and dickhead cheney lies?

Putting their own on the line.

that the Iraq war is all about oil ("We're not there for the figs"), that the GOP will try again to win the next election by playing the fear-and-terror card, and now this. Feels good to get that off your chest, doesn't it, Chuck?

He made pretty much the same statements at least two years ago.

for re-election, he wouldn't be touching the D-word--it's the third rail, especially for a Republican. Remember when the "war czar" guy (Lute?) said this a few months back? Aaaaaannnnd...he was never heard from again.

WASHINGTON (Nov. 6) - Faced with higher recruiting goals, the Pentagon is quietly looking for ways to make it easier for people with minor criminal records to join the military, The Associated Press has learned.

The review, in its early stages, comes as the number of Army recruits needing waivers for bad behavior — such as trying drugs, stealing, carrying weapons on school grounds and fighting — rose from 15 percent in 2006 to 18 percent this year. And it reflects the services' growing use of criminal, health and other waivers to build their ranks.


http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-may-lower-the-bar-for-recruits/20071106165809990001

more criminals serving in our military on the front lines where they are in positions of authority and have access to all kinds of weapons. What constitutes "minor criminal records" anyway? Shouldn't we know? I mean, the Pentagon has had certain standards in terms of the past criminal history of its recruits for a reason, right? It's bad enough that our government is currently being run by a bunch of criminals. Of course, on the other hand, maybe the Pentagon thinks they just might feel more at home with today's so-called "leaders". Now, I strongly believe in the concept of redemption and giving everybody a second chance to become productive members of society but the way the criminal justice system is currently set up, too many people, even some with only "minor" criminal records, continue to "pay" for their crimes for years upon years in a multitude of ways (i.e. inability to vote, obtain housing, public assistance, employment). If the Pentagon, an institution that is charged with the sacred duty of implementing our leaders' foreign policy decisions when the military is involved, is able to disregard its recruits' past criminal history and allow them a chance to serve our country then perhaps we as a society should similarly re-examine our treatment of people with criminal histories and explore our own need to remove barriers that are currently preventing them from becoming productive members of society. I think that this all just goes to show how desperate the Pentagon is becoming for new recruits and that many people are not exactly answering their "call to duty" (and for perfectly good reasons). This news is even more depressing when you think about all of the NON-CRIMINAL and committed GLBT service members (some with desperately needed skills) that the Pentagon has drummed out (and continues to drum out) of the military for no other reason than the fact that they are GLBT.

You think they should only be limited to the whitehouse right now? After all if Bush can do it anyone can *grin*

What a novel idea!!!!

I am not going to die for them, fuck that!

Oh, I forgot - their role model is the man with a boil on his butt who cheered the war, but of course couldn't possibly do anything else than have others die in his place.

Seems we beat him to it:

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html

Admittedly, Rangel had other motives, but i'd be careful in how I played this.

.."my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. As the President speaks of a national response involving the military option, military service should be a shared sacrifice. Right now the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who with limited options chose military service and now find themselves in harm's way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people's children do the fighting"

before considering whether or not to enlist:

"He urged students to seek solutions besides war to the world's problems.

'Terrorism, extremism, biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons — those are a threat to all mankind, not just Christians and not just Americans,' he said.

'War is nothing noble or good; it's all about brutality and suffering, and that should frighten you and intimidate you into doing what's right, to prevent going to war.'"

--Nice to hear a Republican not going on and on about "honor" and "cut-and-run" and "victory" and "Islamofascism".

Suddenly little republican brats who support the war because they never imagined themselves in danger of having to be involved are getting sent to Iraq. Their parents get a whole new perspective when their kids go away to war. Then they really get a new perspective when they start coming home in boxes. Then all of a sudden the war is even less popular. Way less popular. It is a whole new ball game when it is your kid instead of someone else's.

But, alas, we have Blackwater, so maybe the rich can just sponsor a mercenary in their child's place.

much less willingly serve in Iraq? Even the diplomats don't want to go and now have to be forced into serving there! Bush lied and deceived the country (at least most of it anyway) into believing that a ruined and decaying small third world nation was a Hitlerian threat to the rest of the civilized world because its leader (and one time close ally of the US) was supposedly poised to attack us with a plethora of WMD (most of which WE sold him in the 1980's) and was in cahoots with the mother of all terrorists despite massive ideological differences, he lied, bribed, coerced, and intimidated Congress into giving him a blank check to attack Iraq in 2002 right in the middle of an election season no less, worked like hell to defame the UN (not to mention countries that disagreed with the need for war with Iraq) when they told the rest of the world over and over again that they simply couldn't find any WMD no matter how long and hard they searched for them, bribed, coerced, and intimidated several countries into joining his so-called "coalition of the willing" even though most of those countries' citizens didn't support the invasion/occupation (talk about Democracy in action!), invaded and illegally occupied a sovereign country despite the fact that we were not ourselves threatened much less attacked by them, let most of Iraq (except for the oil fields) slip into chaos and disorder following the fall of Saddam's regime (which was actually considered by some people within the CPA to be a "good thing"), and, lastly foisted radical right wing political/economic theories and desires onto Iraq without any consideration of international law much less the needs and desires of the Iraqi people, whom we were (at least partially) there to supposedly "liberate" and bring "democracy" to. NONE of this should have been worth ANYBODY dying for then and certainly not now and it will be VERY cold day in hell before I serve in Iraq even if I have to rot in jail for a few years (at least I'll be safe and keep my body in one piece). And despite the overwhelming support for our ongoing and seemingly never ending occupation of Iraq from the legions of loyal Young Republicans, right-wing talk radio hosts, and other "chickenhawk" Republicans, very few (any?) of them seem willing to actually stick their necks out to fight for that cause which suggests to me that, despite their constant exhortations that we need to boldly and unapologetically confront this new threat of radical Islam ("fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") when talking about Iraq and the so-called "War on Terror", they must not really believe in the cause all that strongly either or they'd already be on the front lines sacrificing their lives just like so many brave Americans (and even some celebrities) did during WW2, which they frequently (but incorrectly) use as a means of giving their support of the occupation of Iraq and the so-called "War on Terror" some desperately needed legitimacy. There will actually be NO need for a military draft to keep things going in Iraq IMHO because the war will be defunded and our troops will be home by the end of the very day that a draft for Iraq is ever mentioned as being a serious possibility. That could change, of course, if Bush, Cheney, et. al decide to widen the war to Iran or elsewhere. I pray every day that Bush, Cheney, et. al be restrained from and/or resist the overwhelming urge they (particularly Cheney) must have every day to "cross the rubicon" into an unnecessary and destructive military conflict with Iran over its supposed ambitions to obtain and/or make a nuclear weapon DESPITE the fact that Iran, as was the case with Iraq, is not even threatening us and whose possession of a nuclear weapon would almost certainly NOT portend a nuclear apocalypse (if we don't end up launching a "preventative strike" on them sometime down the road anyway).