It's drafty in here

["Sixhits"]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_irs_051804,00.html

From military.com:

"The Defense Department, strapped for troops for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, has proposed to Congress that it tap the Internal Revenue Service to locate out-of-touch reservists.

The unusual measure, which the Pentagon said has been examined by lawyers, would allow the IRS to pass on addresses for tens of thousands of former military members who still face recall into the active duty.

The proposal has largely escaped attention amid all the other crises of government, and it is likely to face opposition from privacy rights activists who see information held by the IRS as inviolate.

For it to become practice, Congress and President Bush would have to approve the proposal, which would involve amending the tax code.

Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, said granting access to any IRS data would open the door to more requests from other arms of the government."

Hey, where are all those small government Republicans now?

and here's a less relyable source:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003014

"A friend of mine who is currently an inactive Army reservist forwarded me some memos he received regarding future mobilizations -- memos that indicate that we are not far from some kind of conscription in the next few years. According to my friend, recruiters are telling inactive reservists that they're going to be called up one way or another eventually, so they might as well sign up now and get into non-Iraq-deploying units while they still can. There's also a "warning order" -- i.e., a heads-up -- from the Army's personnel command that talks about the involuntary transfer of inactive reservists to the active reserves, and thus into units that are on deck for the next few Iraq rotations."

and

"My understanding of how reserve call-ups work is imperfect, but if memory serves, the inactive reservists -- known as the Individual Ready Reserve -- are people who have already fulfilled their term of enlistment but can be called up as individuals if the military needs their particular skills or specialty badly enough. In other words, after a couple of years of dipping into the main reserves -- essentially chewing through them to sustain post-9/11 deployments, the Afghanistan occupation, and then the Iraq invasion -- we're now dipping into the inactive reserves. And if we still need more manpower after that -- well, then we start drafting."

[Cossack]

This does not suprise me in the least. As you all know, the United States Army is a volunteer army. This means that we can not adequatley stage a two front war with a few hundred thousand men. If we want to act more efficently in our military duties, then we will have to draft.

[cO.gabe]

Uh oh...

It would be a shame if GS were to get shipped off somewhere and we were never to hear of him again!

hehe jk ... we wub you GS

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Uh oh...
It would be a shame if GS were to get shipped off somewhere and we were never to hear of him again!
hehe jk ... we wub you GS

lol....actually, I would love to get activated.  When 9/11/01 happened, I really wanted to get back on active duty, but they wouldn't let me because I had been out too long (right at 3 years at the time).  Now I've been out for almost 6 years and they really don't want me now.  But technically they can take me back in until September 18, 2008.  I often miss being in the military....and really the only reason I got out was I couldn't stand my Commander-in-Chief at the time (Bill Clinton).  He was downsizing the military, cutting out specialized training codes (like mine), freezing promotions (like mine), and being nice to gays in the military.  Screw all that, it was time to leave.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[BFG]

and being nice to gays in the military

Holy shit? You mean he wasn't Homaphobic?!? Come now you can't have a non-homophobic president can you! Fuck just imagine that. Being nice to men who are gay.

Thank heavens you have a bible bashing homaphobic funamentalist monkey for president... heaven forbid what state america and the world might be in otherwise!

[BTs_GhostSniper]

and being nice to gays in the military

Holy shit? You mean he wasn't Homaphobic?!? Come now you can't have a non-homophobic president can you! Fuck just imagine that. Being nice to men who are gay.
Thank heavens you have a bible bashing homaphobic funamentalist monkey for president... heaven forbid what state america and the world might be in otherwise!

My point being that when I take a shower in the barracks with a bunch of other men, I really don't want them fantasizing about me.  Not real good for the morale of the troops.  The "don't ask, don't tell" policy of Clinton was a joke.  Gays have no place in the military.  Sorry.

["Sixhits"]

Yah, and bitches have no place being their either. It's not like women and gays have a country to defend. It's not like they are patriots in their ranks. While we're at it I think we should boot the blacks and asians outa the service too. Cause you don't want to see just how bit a black man it in the shower. It's bad for morale.

Seriously, it's all the same argument. They're different so I fear them. You're a fucking killer. What's a gay man going to do to you other than look?

[BFG]

Darn, absoutly Sixhits. And in future i would like segregated showers in public swimming pools. The very idea that a gay man might look at me while im in the nip and think im attractive is horrific. So we must have gay and lesbian swimming pools now please. They have no right to swim in the same place as us.

Black and asian people are just not right for moral either are they gs. They just have no place in the good old US Army... US? Oh im sorry is that the country that keeps goin on about being the home of democracy and opportunity... Oh opportunity as long as your a white hextrosexual male?

Short people as well. I don't think short people should be allowed in the army. Its just not right, they have no place. its not fair that they are smaller targets than me, and the idea that they could get shot at as well as me is rediculose. I don't want some short guy near me when im in the army, becasue the chances are people will shoot at me and not the short guy cos im a easier target.

Your only allowed to join the army if your  Hextrosexual and backwards thinking. Im surprised they let liberals in the army, hell They just have no place in the world army.

Come to think of it probably most gay guys and women have far more common sense than to even contemplate joining - they know only too well the sort of people they would have to deal with if they did.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Yah, and bitches have no place being their either.

Unless the military has changed since I was in, we never had to shower with women.  Sure women have a place in the military.  And if they would give gays a separate shower, I might even feel a bit differently.  But when I am out on patrols, and I come up to one of our foxholes, look in, and there are two gay guys fucking....sorry, just isn't right.

And another thing.  I really wasn't going to go here, but here it is all spelled out in black and white for you guys.  Until some of you guys actually grow some balls (or ovaries, as the case may be) and join the military, I really don't give a flying fuck what you think on the subject.  I am all for listening to other people's opinions, but some of you have never served DAY ONE in uniform and as such really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Respectfully yours,

-GhostSniper

[BFG]

But when I am out on patrols, and I come up to one of our foxholes, look in, and there are two gay guys fucking....sorry, just isn't right.

Yes...Becasue that would happen woulnd't it obviously. you put two gay guys in the same patrol and they just wont be able to resist each other.

Just as if you put a hetroxsexual  man and woman they would obviously end up going at it like rabbits at the fist possible chance........

[BTs_GhostSniper]

But when I am out on patrols, and I come up to one of our foxholes, look in, and there are two gay guys fucking....sorry, just isn't right.

Yes...Becasue that would happen woulnd't it obviously. you put two gay guys in the same patrol and they just wont be able to resist each other.
Just as if you put a hetroxsexual  man and woman they would obviously end up going at it like rabbits at the fist possible chance........

Sorry I didn't explain things further....Here is "the REST of the story"...

First of all, this actually happened.  I was a Sgt at the time, and this happened in 1994 while I was still in the Army (late that year I joined the Air Force).  We were having an FTX (Field Training Exercise) for a time period of 30 days at Fort Benning, GA.  This was around the middle of the exercise, roughly 15 days in.  I was out on a mock patrol and was heading back to our base camp when I decided to check on our foxhole emplacements (it was always a good idea to check things out before heading in or the mock "enemy" might just sneak up on you).  So anyhow, I came up to one of our foxholes, couldn't see the two soldiers that should have been there, looked down inside, and wow....was I ever shocked.  Mind you I'm 21 years old at the time and had never seen such acts.  But sure enough, here was one soldier fucking his "buddy" in the ass.  Needless to say, neither of the two soldiers lasted more than a month longer (that was about the quickest you could kick somebody out back then).  Lucky for them, they didn't get Federal Time....this was an act punishable under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Also, just so that we are clear here....this really would NOT happen between a heterosexual man and woman in this situation....do you know why?  It's because men and women don't serve together in Special Forces, Ranger, Combat Controller, and many other combat arms units in the U.S. Military.  This very thing is one of the main reasons for that.

Now, again I say, very respectfully here....some of you just don't know what you are talking about.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Edited to make part of my post blue so it would stand out better]

[spike]

Sure, we may not have actual visercal memories of life in the military, but one does not have to experience a wrong to know that it is wrong. Everyone knows murder is wrong, not many people have actually experienced it. I agree what those two dudes did was wrong. I just hope they weren't punished more than a heterosexual couple would have been. The bias that gays want it all the time, and that they are shooting for you(pardon the pun) is arrogent and completely incorrect. I believe Chris Rock had it right when he said about gays in the military: Gays in the military? Shit, I don't mind, let em fight! I'm sure as shit not going to go out and fight, they can go and have all the fun they want!

(a short search of google didnt yeild any good qoute so I paraphrased)

In a time when gays are increasingly accepted as normal citizens, and when we fight a war which is increasingly unpopular with much of the population, I believe the army is going to have to start accepting people for who they are.

["Sixhits"]

GS, I understand the nature or your rejection in regards to gays in the military. Is it good to mix sex (and I mean fucking) with any business? No, not really. But people are people and we have expectations in society about how they behave. What those dudes did was wrong not because they were gay but because they broke rules on military conduct - and I would expect the bigger rule they broke was fucking while on duty, not being gay.

That being said, and to wrap around back to our expectations of people, why do you believe a gay man couldn't or shouldn't serve next to you? Is it because of something inside of you or because of something about him?

Frankly, I think anyone who willfully puts themselves in harms way in order to protect this country deserves praise. I also think that a man who died defending his country is no less a man for being a gay man.

It's the business of soldiers to set aside certain parts of themselves when they become soldiers. The foremost being the unnatural nature of killing. If someone can overcome that then they can overcome their lust for your hot ass. And if they don't then you have a problem.

Every argument I've heard against gays in the military was based on emotion, not fact. Much like when the military was segregated and when it was male only. The arguments ring the same bell. But I beleive our military should represent us as Americans. That means all races, sexes, and creeds. It should even include all sexual orientations.

[alaric]

It's the business of soldiers to set aside certain parts of themselves when they become soldiers.

That's exactly my feeling on the subject. Your conduct is what's important, not your sexual preference. What those two soldiers did was throughly unprofessional and they should have been punished severely, as they were. However, I would expect the same severe punishment for a heterosexual couple should that case ever arise.

As for the shower thing, I guess it doesn't bother me if some other guy thinks I'm hot. What he thinks in his mind is no business of mine. However he'd better not make a move or it will very quickly become my business.

In sum, professionalism, not sexuality, is the issue here.

["Sixhits"]

Tonight  is a night of follow ups:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

"Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website:

www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft."