With a Possible Draft To Come- DU & It's Affects Need to Be Considered

[Guest guest]

Regardless of how you feel about whether a draft is good or not-

everyone needs to know about the DU radiation exposure that EVERYONE

in Iraq is experiencing- even our own military. No one should be

exposed to that. We have already heard about Gulf War Syndrome-

there are thousands and thousands of reports of those who served-

and then in turn their spouses and children suffering from exposure

to DU. And now we are using something like 3xs more DU this time

around... The UN has called this practice equal to using Weapons of

Mass Destruction. Everyone of draft age 18-35, male and female-

since there are plans to draft women, and parents of people in this

situation need to research DU as much as possible, as soon as

possible, and make sure elected officals are told no to this.

 

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

PNAC Calling For A Draft?

By William Rivers Pitt

Truthout.org

1-31-5

 

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

 

 

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces

January 28, 2005

 

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and

Representative Pelosi:

 

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we

are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and

important. They are not going away. The United States will not and

should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come.

But our national security, global peace and stability, and the

defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a

larger military force than we have today. The administration has

unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size

needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

 

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch

to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of

the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about

just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its

own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that

we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine

Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next

several years.

 

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions

in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and

alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting

current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month,

Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported

that " overuse " in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a " broken

force. " Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in

Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater

Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a " generational

commitment. " The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this

commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our

civilian leadership.

 

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality.

We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the

fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the

defense of the United States is the first priority of the

government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along

with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary

number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the

military.

 

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are

spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any

time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-

size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly

to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and

fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

 

The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over

the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But

many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too

small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor

the contract between America and those who serve her in war.

Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and

reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as

humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed

forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to

the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the

manpower and the materiel they need.

 

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the

duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States

in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a

bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to

call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you

insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's

obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign

policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal

 

Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder

 

Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.

 

Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF,

retired)

 

Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan

 

Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA,

retired)

 

William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May

 

Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel

McKivergan

 

Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon

 

Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka

 

Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)

 

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

 

Walter Slocombe James B. Stei