[Automobill]

Media? Ok. I don't think

billing the military as a great career move is right. The military is a tough job that requires you to go against

what you believe. They don't show the killing in their recruitment commercials.

And I'm primarily against

their recruitment tactics where they prey on the lower class people. Our military is turning into the French Foreign

Legion.

[indartwm]

I'll bet anyone

here that there may or may not be a draft.

Who's on?

..........

[indartwm]

If Bush can drum up support in the GOP power base for attacking Iran, Syria

and/or N. Korea as he wants to; and we cannot withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (Why does no one mention

Afghanistan any more?); there will be a draft. This is not rocket science. It is the fundamental project of

neocons.

I'm fairly certain the Bush administration is timing the inevitable escalation of their aggressive

rhetoric and stance toward Iran and Syria, to allow for more human resources to be freed up from current

engagements, if possible. They also have to time it to account for pushing through and implementing a draft. I do

know contingency plans are already well in place for an emergency draft. This raises the possiblity of allowing

another terrorist attack to happen at home (remember the 52 warnings, "My Pet Goat", Richard Clarke, the PNAC wish

for another Pearl Harbor; and failure to scramble planes despite plenty of awareness and time?), to ensure the

necessary support and human resources will be available.

If redirecting human resources from Iraq and

Afghanistan is impossible; and yet they are still able to control mainstream media and the press as they have, they

will probably be able to tell enough lies and evoke enough terror at home to convince people to go along with

expanding the "war against terrorism." (Anybody heard from Bin Laden lately? I heard he's a "three handicap" now!).

A draft would be forthcoming.

Otherwise, no one knows; and I doubt the decision has been made.

Implementing

a draft would have political costs for Republicans, since that brings war home to citizens regardless of political

bent (There is a political bias toward the right in soldier families which would be nullified if families weren't

volunteers). If there is a draft, the level of protest will be comparable to the 1960's. Some will arm themselves

in rebellion, just like then (then Patty Hearst will have something to do again).

It takes balls to bet on this

either way. I don't know if this whole process can play itself out in a year.

[Jourgenz]

I want the

draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's

because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.

from

EASTBAYEXPRESS.com

"News
War Pornography
Gore-for-porn swap by US soldiers in Iraq makes Abu Ghraib

look like kid stuff.
By Chris Thompson

Published: Wednesday, September 21,

2005


NowThatsFuckedUp.com




Who / What:
NowThatsFuckedUp.com


The War

Pornographers


Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by

Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
Send this story to a friend





Feature
Fishin' for Evildoers
All aboard the August Vollmer, Alameda County's terror-fightin'

gunboat.

Bottom Feeder
Condé Nasty
Construction-happy Wired magnates feud with NIMBY neighborhood --

again. Oops! Dellums might just run after all, but rival Nacho wants that church vote.

City of Warts
A

Nation's Forgotten Suffering
Haiti sets the standard for misery, and yet, save one Oakland journalist, US media

don't consider its pain and mayhem terribly newsworthy.

Cityside
When Silence Equals Death
Hybrid

vehicles are good for the planet, but bad news for the visually impaired. What's a well-meaning lefty to

do?

Letters
Letters for the week of September 21-27, 2005
Git yer frankin' facts straight! We don't

even have a water cooler. And whatever does Chris Thompson expect he's going to accomplish?



If you

want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American

soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly

mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him

post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures

of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.
At Wilson's Web site, you can see an Arab man's

face sliced off and placed in a bowl filled with blood. Another man's head, his face crusted with dried blood and

powder burns, lies on a bed of gravel. A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint

lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck

blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as US Marines, laugh and smile for the camera

while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet.

The captions that accompany these

images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier

who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look

like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears

the caption: "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled

his collection, "die haji die." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.

This is a moral

catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials have banned the media

from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media

officials have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and

American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu

Ghraib has dragged on for months, with no less a figure than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers

arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But

none of these can compare to the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for

porn.

"Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures

of it, I would have said that's a lie," sighed the recently retired General Michael Marchand – who as Assistant

Judge Advocate General for the Army was responsible for reforming military training policy to make sure nothing like

Abu Ghraib ever happens again. "What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."

But for Chris Wilson,

it's all in a day's work. "It's an unedited look at the war from their point of view," he says of the soldiers

who contribute the images. "There's always going to be a slant from the news media. ... And this is a photo that

comes straight from their camera to the site. To me, it's just a more real look at what's going on."



Wilson, a 27-year-old Web entrepreneur living in Florida, created the Web site a year ago, asked fans to

contribute pictures of their wives and girlfriends, and posted footage and photographs bearing titles such as "wife

working cock" and "ass fucking my wife on the stairs." The site was a big hit with soldiers stationed overseas;

about a third of his customers, or more than fifty thousand people, work in the military. Wilson says he started

getting e-mail from soldiers thanking him for keeping up their morale and "bringing a little piece of the States to

them." But other soldiers complained that they had problems buying memberships to his service. "They wanted to join

the site, the amateur wife and girlfriend site," he says. "But they couldn't, because the addresses associated with

their credit cards were Quackistan or something, they were in such a high-risk country, that the credit card

companies wouldn't approve the purchase."

That's when Wilson hit upon the idea of offering free

memberships to soldiers. All they had to do was send a picture of life in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they'd get all

the free porn they wanted. All sorts of images began appearing over the transom, but he dedicated a special site to

view the most "gory" pictures. Asked what he feels upon viewing a new crop, Wilson says: "Personally, I don't look

at it one way or another. It's newsworthy, and people can form their own opinions."

Wilson's Web site has

made the news before – but not for posting pictures of murdered human beings. Last October, the New York Post

reported that the Pentagon was investigating Wilson for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a

few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked soldiers in Iraq from accessing the Web site, which had

posted five more pictures of nude female soldiers, some of whom had posed with machine guns and grenades. After the

Post's stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even

after he started posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie

pics. It wasn't until reporters from the European press contacted him last week that anyone took notice of

Wilson's snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.

"The soldiers thing, I think the Italians picked

it up first," Wilson says. "I've done interviews with the Italians, the French, Amsterdam. ... They were very

critical, saying the US wouldn't pick it up, because it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical

questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."

According to Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris

Conway, Pentagon policy may be ambivalent when it comes to soldiers posting pictures of mutilated war victims.

"There are policies in place that, on the one hand, safeguard sensitive and classified information, and on the other

hand protects the First Amendment rights of servicemembers," he says, adding that field commanders may issue

additional directives. "In plain English, if you're on the job working for the Department of Defense, you

shouldn't be freelancing. You should be doing your duty."

If American soldiers are always considered

representatives of their government while in the field, international law clearly prohibits publishing and

ridiculing images of war dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who

have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be

respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva

Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if

possible according to the rites off the religion to which they belonged."

Nothing about this appalling trade

could begin to be called "honorable." This latest scandal doesn't just demean the bodies of the dead – it demeans

us all, in ways we won't begin to understand for years. One of the pictures on Wilson's site depicts a woman whose

right leg has been torn off by a land mine, and a medical worker is holding the mangled stump up to the camera. The

woman's vagina is visible under the hem of her skirt. The caption for this picture reads: "Nice puss – bad

foot."

We have decided to make available six of the photos originally posted on NowThatsFuckedUp.com, along

with the soldiers' original subject headings. This decision to repost them was not made lightly, but we concluded

that the graphic nature of the photos, juxtaposed with their flippant treatment by members of the US military, is

newsworthy as a statement on US military culture. WARNING: These are brutally graphic war images that many readers

will find disturbing. They should NOT be viewed by children or the faint of heart. With that disclaimer, you will

find them here. Click on the small photos to view the larger photos with captions. "

[Mymnnarry]

Sounds to

me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

There's always been a call for a

few good men to enlist in the military, since the founding of this country. Every president, from Washington to

GWB, has felt that military service is an honorable career option for our nation's youth.

Falling

short of recruiting goals doesn't mean a draft is coming. I doubt there is even one general who would welcome a

draft, much less the rank and file soldiers who's backs should rightly be covered by someone who wants to be on the

front lines. A draft would weaken the effectiveness of the armed forces IMO, and I do not see how that would

improve the "morality" among the men and women who serve, as you seemed to have implied.

I think a

large part of recruiting shortages is the result of selective negative reporting by the media. If 99.99% of the

soldiers carry out their duties with honor, then 99.99% of the news stories should focus on the good work that is

being done. I'm not saying that bad deeds ought to be covered up, but one must really question the sensationalist

mentality of the media in what it chooses to focus on. Surely, one has plenty of material to use to bash the

current administration without having to use our servicemen and women as tools for a political

agenda.

Anyhow, have you decided to use a third party mediator to make the payout?

[Jourgenz]

Should you win I

will send to your paypal account (I have one myself) $100 on Jan 1st 2006. Should I win you will pay me right away?

I mention this just so we are firm on the rules of this bet.

I am not a pacifist by any stretch of the

imagination. I would like to see the authoritarian rulers in Iran toppled. I do not think that the internal

resistance there is of much consequence. I would like to see the North Korean peasants freed as well.

Let

me get this straight, you are saying we won't nuke the Iranians but we will nuke the North Koreans? Could you

elaborate on why that is so? Is there some fine line in place that differentiates the two. Yes, I know you said we

would not use nukes to destroy their nuclear facilities but what about the next day when the entire Iranian Armed

Forces head towards and into Iraq? Actually, this would be just one more good enough reason to get our troops out

of Iraq within the next 30-60 days.

If we do attack Iran, my own feeling is that whatever internal

resistance existing there will change their views dramatically once we attack and rally to the "national cause" to

repel the so-called "Great Satan". One only has to look to Iraq where the vast majority there want us out and out

soon. The Shia majority won the so-called free election there. Don't you think they will be turning to Iran now?

How do you think the Shia are going to react when we tell them that Allawi is going to remain in charge anyways?

[Jourgenz]

laughing here, in addition

to this bet I also occasionally bet college football, notably Florida State. When I win I graciously accept the

money from whomever I've made the bet while making a comment such as "hey, it could have easily gone the other way"

or when I lose, I hand over the cash and whoever gets it says something like, "hey, thanks, it could have easily

gone the other way". We keep it gentlemanly.

"You're a doomsday monger".

Hardly. My belief is

that if we all try hard we can make this world a better place. Your belief seems to be that since war crimes have

been committed in the past that we should expect and, most sadly mirroring your personality, accept their happening

again and again.

"And you have delusions of how the world really works."

You'll have to explain

how that is? Expatiate please.

"Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months."

I don't think so.

It's put up or shut up now that you've pissed me off. Will one of the forum members please volunteer to accept my

$100 and Biohazards $100 to later disburse to the winner within a week of Jan 1st, 2006? If someone is nice enough

to do this, I'll add an extra $25 so they can have a nice meal on me. Thanks in advance. Biohazard, you might be

so generous yourself although it's certainly not required.

"Nice to see you're still around Koolking and

haven't forgot about our bet."

I don't like your implication. Most people on this board know that I have

been and will likely continue to be "around". I also know that my chances of winning are dwindling as the months

quickly go by and actually getting the money out now works to my benefit and yours as I'm leaving on Jan 8th for a

4 month trek around the world (sure hope my being delusional doesn't impact my trip!!!).

Good Luck to you.

[Mymnnarry]

No. Our all-volunteer armed

forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about

whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of

my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what

you can do for your country."

Iran is not in gunsights in terms of an invasion and regime change. There

are powers within Iran that are slowly turning the wheels against the Islamic fundamentalists. Any attack on Iran

will be tactical air strikes on facilities to keep them in check.

North Korea is bluffing once again.

Any country that wishes to announce to the world that it has nukes will detonate one during a test to leave no

doubt. They blackmailed Bill Clinton with tough words, but they don't intimidate the current administration.

Besides, there were declassified documents from the Clinton days that revealed we would have nuked North Korea had

they attacked its neighbors. The declassification was done purposefully -- to remind North Korea not to try

anything stupid.

[Jourgenz]

If we were to use

tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real quick-like,

heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.

Those

pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ, any

ideas?

$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends to

be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?

I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong with

that, if you join up soon that is.

[indartwm]

It's not

about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf

of my country.

Fascinating, unquestioning nationalistic belief; worthy of further contemplation.

[Mymnnarry]

If we were to

use tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real

quick-like, heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.



Those pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ,

any ideas?

$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends

to be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?

I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong

with that, if you join up soon that is.

It would be a tactical air strike on Iranian facilities using

standard munitions, not nukes. There's already unmanned aerial surveillance over Iran to search for targets and

collect air samples to detect "nukular" activity. Would Iran step it up a notch and invade another predominantly

Muslim nation to retaliate? End up killing a lot of Muslims as collateral, and still be able to claim to the Muslim

world that it was acting to defend itself? Interesting question with lots of diplomatic consequences for Iran.

Also, while they're busy sending their army across the border to fight Americans, would they be toppled by

opposition forces from within?

The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of

range of first strike mortar fire. But any invasion of the South by the North will result in a huge mushroom cloud

over Pyongyang within 48 hours. It would be over before we even need a draft. Their "bluff" is that they claim to

have nukes. Their poker face isn't very good.

I am a Bush supporter in that the alternative doesn't

represent a position that is acceptable to me. But I'm certainly no Greenpeace-looking yuppy liberal either if you

were curious.

I am quoting your $100 bet because I will take you up on that. Seriously. I have a Paypal

account you can send money to by the end of the year.

[larentont]

the rhetoric

is ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?

Having been in

the military within the last administration, I wouldn't be too surprised if it does happen.

People that say

that a draft will absolutley not happen, are deluding themselves. When I was in for Basic at Ft.Knox they were

gearing up to take on 3 more training companies. In fact I helped clean out the Cold WAr era barracks to make way

for new bunks, wall lockers, and training equipment. The Army doesn't do this unless they are going to be training

privates in those buildings. Thomas White came and inspected those buildings that I cleaned out, and shook my hand

and congratulated me and my platoon on how good of a job we did in preparing those training barracks.

I was

told by Col. Ballantyne that there were 'contingency' plans to instate an overnight draft and get 100 thousand new

footsloggers on the field within three months should Iran or N.K. get uppity and do something stupid.

There

were also unconfirmed rumors that Thomas White proposed a bill that would force all graduating teenagers to a

mandatory two-years of military service. At the same time I was told by my Sergeant Major that the President would

be instituting a "stop-loss" order when we we invaded Iraq. All of which In learned when we were still bombing

civilians and Taliban in Afghanistan.

So far, the invasion of Iraq, and the 'stop-loss' order have happened.

So I wouldn't be too damn surprised to find out that 18-30yo's get the Selective Service call-up in the near

future. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in sunny Fallujah in the next few months.

And as

an aside...

I find that draft dodgers and would-be draft dodgers are hypocrits. They enjoy all the priviledges

of what the soldier class has provided to them, yet refuse to serve so their cushy way of life can continue.



For every draft dodging tree-hugging dope-addled hippy, there was a man that sacrificed his life to ensure that

punk could smoke his dope, spout his stupidity, and zone out on his boob-tube.

That's not to say I haven't

smoked pot, hugged a tree, spouted stupidity, or zoned out to a boob-tube. But I'm willing to lay down my life so

this severly screwed-up country can exist for others to straighten out, and then promptly screw up all over again.



Freedom and liberty come at a cost, sometimes a terrible one. There is no 'just' war, there is only war. War

is about survival of your ideology, your way of life, your community, and ultimately your DNA. There will always be

a battlefeild. Those that refuse to participate in the survival of the very way of life that allowed them that

freedom of thought and voice are, in my opinion, some very sad, scared, and unhealthy human animals.

[Jourgenz]

Army Having

Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service

By

Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A01

The active-duty Army

is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those

that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with

senior officers .

For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4

percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half

of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the Army is rushing

incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average

number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty

recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary

incentives.

Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed

to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young

American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq

conflict.

"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin

L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing

settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our

goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."

Other senior military

officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging

for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in

January for the first time in nearly a decade.

Because the Army is the main U.S. military ground force, its

ability to draw recruits is critical to the nation's preparedness to fight current and future wars. The Army can

sustain its ranks through retaining more experienced soldiers -- and indeed retention in 2004 was 107 percent -- but

if too few young recruits sign up, the force will begin to age. Moreover, higher retention in the active-duty Army

translates into a dwindling stream of recruits for the already troubled Army Guard and Reserve.

Army

officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for

fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.

Still, the recruiting difficulties reflect

unprecedented demands on today's soldiers that are unlikely to let up soon. Never before has the all-volunteer Army

deployed to war zones in such large numbers for multiple, yearlong tours. It is doing so with a total force cut by

300,000 troops -- from 28 active-duty and reserve divisions to 18 -- since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The

Army is now working to add 30,000 soldiers by 2009, expanding the active-duty force from 482,000 to 512,000, as it

builds 10 to 15 new combat brigades to add to divisions for overseas tours. But cultivating so many fresh recruits

without lowering standards is a serious challenge, senior Army leaders say. "If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can

do that pretty quick, but now grow 30,000 of them back," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, told a House

Armed Services committee hearing Feb. 9. "It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier."

Time,

however, is what the Army lacks.

Beyond replacing normal turnover each year, officials say the Army must

accelerate recruitment to meet an aggressive timeline for filling out the new brigades of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers

each, as well as to expand and reorganize the 33 existing brigades.

Newly trained troops are essentially

being rationed out -- a process Army officers call "turning on the faucet" -- a few months before the brigades are

to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The military plans to keep about 120,000 troops in Iraq through 2006.



"The priority fill goes to deploying units to make sure they are at full strength before they go overseas,"

says Col. Joseph Anderson, who until this month served as chief of staff of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort

Campbell, Ky.

Such demands have led the Army to deplete its reservoir of enlistees in the Delayed Entry

Program (DEP). The DEP consists of people who have signed enlistment contracts but opt to delay their entry to

training camps for up to a year. DEP numbers fell from 33,249 at the beginning of fiscal 2004 to 14,739 at the start

of this fiscal year, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.

As a result, while the Army began

last year with 45.9 percent of its recruiting goal filled by the pool, this year it started with just 18.4 percent

in the pool -- the lowest amount since 2001 and well below the 30 percent average for the past decade. That means

the Army must redouble its efforts to meet this year's target.

"Would we like a deeper DEP, a greater

number? Of course we would," Hagenbeck said. But despite his anticipation of an even tougher recruiting environment

in 2006 -- resulting from an improving economy and public uncertainty over the Iraq war -- he said the overriding

need to hasten recruits to units means there are no plans to replenish the DEP this year.

Meanwhile, netting

each new recruit is proving more difficult and time-consuming, Hagenbeck said, requiring the Army to put hundreds

more active-duty recruiters on the job.

"The youngsters that are joining us are spending more time with the

recruiters before they raise their right hand," he said. Today, most prospective enlistees contact the Army via the

Internet, he said, asking numerous questions that require more recruiters to answer online and follow up with phone

calls.

But few candidates will join up before meeting a recruiter in person and spending significant amounts

of time with one, he said. "They ultimately want to see a soldier, a recruiter, and talk to them eyeball to

eyeball," he said. As a result, "the recruiter who could go out and recruit two people this week might be consumed

with recruiting that one."

The average cost of signing up a recruit is also beginning to rise, from $15,265

in fiscal 2001 to $15,967 in fiscal 2004 -- the result of more recruiters, advertising, and increased enlistment

bonuses. In January, the Army announced a new six-month advertising contract with Leo Burnett USA worth an estimated

$100 million. The Army is offering bonuses of as much as $20,000 to enlist on active duty for four years, with

special monetary incentives for candidates who have college degrees, sign up for high-priority jobs or agree to move

quickly into training.

The Army is also paying more to retain active-duty soldiers, 50 percent of whom now

receive reenlistment bonuses, compared with 39 percent in 2003, Army officials said.

"We may not get exactly

the number of people we want, but we're not sacrificing quality," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a House

committee Feb. 9.

The Army is offering higher ranks to enlistees who have spent time in college or junior

ROTC, and as a result is bringing in more recruits at ranks above private, or E-1.

Such policies could

partly explain a shift in the Army's junior enlisted ranks that has perplexed military analysts. The number of

privates (E-1 through E-3) in the active-duty Army has sharply declined from 126,100 in October 2001 to 107,500 in

December 2004. Meanwhile, the number of corporals and specialists (E-4) has risen from 95,400 to 115,500.



Another explanation is that the active-duty Army is maintaining its force strength more through retention

than recruitment, resulting in a subtle aging of the force -- a trend already evident in the Army Reserve, officials

said.

[Jourgenz]

of course, I am!!! I need

to find some sucker to bet me $100 that there will be a draft.

[Jourgenz]

"No. Our all-volunteer

armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about

whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my

country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can

do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often about the need for

our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the military?

I could have taken you to

task to explain what I find is a lack of accurate historical information but will just ask that you explain this

statement (for the moment, I may have more questions later).

here's what I want to you to explain please:



"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar

fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very definitive statement on

your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am curious.

[apodildNoli]

I think Koolking is right

though that we need a draft.

[Jourgenz]

the rhetoric is

ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?

[Jourgenz]

from the Army

Times:

October 04, 2005

Senate gives nod to
recruiting older citizens

By Rick Maze
Times

staff writer


Legislation allowing military recruits to enter service up to age 42 and to create a new

$1,000 finder’s fee for service members who tip off recruiters to good prospects has received tentative approval in

the Senate.
A package of 81 approved amendments to the 2006 defense authorization bill unveiled Monday includes a

recruiting and retention plan, proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and prepared by the Army, that also:

•

Raises the maximum enlistment bonus.

• Allows people with prior military service to get more than one bonus

for joining the reserves.

• Increases the maximum bonus for officers joining the reserves.

Sen. John

Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who submitted the package of approved amendments, said

the 81 amendments in it represented those on which agreement had been reached between Democrats and Republicans

during the two-month delay in work on the defense bill.

Warner said the package has amendments offered by 68

of the 100 senators, and that he and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, his committee’s ranking Democrat, would urge its

adoption when the Senate gets back to work on the bill, which could be this week.

Raising enlistment and

re-enlistment bonuses is the military’s traditional response to past problems in manning the force, but increasing

the maximum recruiting age and paying a referral bonus are new ideas, both aimed at the Army and its recruiting

difficulties.

The current age limit for active-duty recruits, 35, would increase to 42 for the all of the

services.

The provision is not controversial because it is expected the military would use the new authority

sparingly. The Army is the only service to express interest, and Army officials told the House Armed Services

Committee earlier this year that the new authority would be used only for a few critical specialties.

The

finder’s fee idea, however, does come with some controversy. Under the proposal, a member of the Army, Army Reserve

or Army National Guard could receive a $1,000 bonus for referring a person who has never served in the armed forces

to a recruiter.

For the finder to get the fee, the potential recruit would have to enlist in the Army, Army

Reserve or Army National Guard and finish basic and advanced training. No payments would be given for referring an

immediate family member, and anyone in a recruiting or career counselor assignment would be

ineligible.

McCain’s proposal limits the number of bonuses to 1,000 as an initial test and would cancel the

program on Jan. 1, 2008.

Army officials have talked about wanting to offer bonuses of up to $2,500 and

another new enlistment incentive of up to $25,000 that could be used as a down payment on the purchase of a home.

"

are nursing homes next stop for recruiters?

BioHazard, I'll be replying to you shortly.



Alas, no one here has stepped up to the plate to hold the dough so it's back to plan A. One of us pays up

on the 1st of Jan 2005. However, should I lose and I'll be confident that I've lost if nothing happens prior to

Dec 25th, I'll get the cash out to you then as I will have a lot to do shortly after that.

[jessyhalm]

Hahaha.. I love these

conversations... Your just blatenly dumb if you think there is going to be a draft (No offense of course). Bottom

line is it is not going to happen, and that statement is so obsurd that Im not even going to qualify my comment

about it.

SrA Adams

[OrefZorremn]

The guy is a Texan, a Skull and

Boner, and was raised by an Illuminate;why would he not tell us anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth; so help him God.