Mandatory Draft starting 6/15/05

whitereflection

whitereflection

CAGiversary!
Feedback
67 (100%)
I've searched for this, and while there have been discussions on the war in Iraq, I haven't found this specific topic, so moderaators: feel free to move/lock this if necessary.

"Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally affects everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes. There is pending legislation in the house and senate (companion
bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as 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. Details and links follow. This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the
draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been made very difficult.

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this website: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages 18- 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an
option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay within its borders. This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those that are currently active. If you go to the select service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will effect our undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren. Please take the time to write your congressman and let them know how you feel about this legislation.
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system 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 www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the Selective Service System 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 permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.



Entitled the Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services."

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but this was an e-mail forwarded to me from a friend. I've checked out the links myself and the majority of this e-mail seems dead-accurate. I just thought I'd pass this along since everyone should know about it.

Thoughts? Feedback?
 
It's not a draft so much as it is "mandatory service". A draft would entail them calling men into the military for combat purposes. This bill seems to be on par wiht what some other countries are doing; Offering a choice between military and CIVILLIAN services for short term period. I, personally, don't think it's going to pass, but we'll see.
 
that's shaqfuing ridiculous. It will never pass unless we have another major WAR. (i.e. World War III. The "War" on Iraq, is not a real war IMHO) There are already too many uproars about Iraq now, can you imagine if they drafted?


No one wants another Vietnam. Nobody.
 
I'd say this needs to be moved to the political forum. And I think it's a repost as there is already a discussion about a possible draft that started in the political forum yesterday.
 
I don't think they would force you into the military unless a large war broke out, and in that case they would just push through some draft law anyway if they needed people that badly like in ww2.
It sounds like they are trying to pass it just in case the shite hits the fan so they can be ready and not caught with their pants down and everyone running to canada.
I think as an american it should be our duty to help if there is ever another war like ww2. I just hope its not another invade evil country for oil/revenge scheme. Then that law would suck major donkey balls.
 
Do what i do I vote for myself LOL

i voted for BOBO before my friend asked who that was i said it was my hamster



get real people a draft will never happen
 
You are aware [I guess not, actually] that that bill was a House of Representatives Act introduced by the House, and really has nothing to do with 'the current administration' unless and until it gets approved by both houses and sent up for the President's signature?
Quick, what are the three branches of government?

And of course, the details, which aren't important:

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

Rangel- Democrat.
MCDERMOTT- Democrat
Conyers-Democrat
Lewis- Democrat
STARK- Democrat
ABERCROMBIE- Democrat

Yeah, let's not vote for Bush. Christ, before your paranoia drives you insane, can you people at least use a little reading comprehension? Read the bill, understand who brought it up [and why, Rangel has long been a proponent of a military draft to punish rich white boys], what has to happen before it even gets to GWB, and what it actually discusses
"perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security' Lots of countries, including many of the elite EU countries, have mandatory service. Didn't even Clinton push 'mandatory volunteerism'?
Agree or disagree, debate the issue, but *please* educate yourselves and don't act like total bandwagon-jumping lemmings.

So if you live in NY, HI, GA, or the other states where the admissors of this bill serve, definitely register to vote and vote them out of there.

If you *really* want an eyeopener, on that same Thomas site, browse the Congressional Record and see what is actually going on, what is being said, up there on the Hill.
 
Senate would vote on something like this, if it was true. so if we want to point fingers at someone, who's part of the senate, Kerry!, so if this fake chain e-mail every becomes passed lets see if Kerry,first, even votes, and when he does what for.

btw, There where a ton of UPS uniforms sold on ebay,so watch out for fake UPS deliver persons.

and i'm cursed for 7 years of bad relationships cuz i didn't send an email to five of my friends.
 
[quote name='Xevious']I would fight for Afghanstan not Iraq. Afghanstan is a war I believe in. Iraq is not.[/quote]

No offense, if you're in the military, whether drafted or volunteered, you should fight and work whereever you're sent. Any other way leads to the increased impotency of a military. I have a civilian job, and my company does, and asks that I do, lots of things I don't 'believe in', but I do them--that's my job. [And no, I don't mean things like 'Go torture and kill all those civilians' like at My Lai, there are of course times to stand up.]
 
Frankly whats going to happen is going to happen, anymore I don't have much faith at all in the goverment. All i see is a big truck stuck in the mud, spinning its tires.....
 
i dont see what the big deal about dodging up to canada is anyways. the day im financially stable(or if i can transfer my school to toronto), ill be there ^^
 
I'm not sure I understand the point of this bill. The Selective service is already in place. Congress can issue a draft at any point. That was the point of the program. I do not quite understand the point of this program.
 
There is no reason for a draft nor anyone to worry about it unless some real serious stuff starts to happen, i.e. nukes, WW3, etc. If that heppened the worst thing you'd worry about is a draft. There are plenty of volunteers willing to serve. Look at after 9/11, recruitments actually went up as people were pissed and wanted to fight. Even in this current state of war people are still signing up in record numbers, my brother is starting boot camp next week. Pentagon officials have already said a trained and willing army is better then draging out inexperienced kids off the street, we learned that from Vietnam. That chain letter has nothing to do with Bush, if you don't like him for other reasons then vote him out but don't let these draft scare tactics that the democrats are spreading influence your vote.
 
[quote name='Indiana']I'm not sure I understand the point of this bill. The Selective service is already in place. Congress can issue a draft at any point. That was the point of the program. I do not quite understand the point of this program.[/quote]

The point of the program is not to draft, it is for mandatory service. It says that after graduating highschool (Or sometime soon after) people must serve in the military or do community service (Peace Corps?) for 2 years. I believe the same program is in effect in Germany?
 
Reality's Fringe said:
I believe the bill exists, but I don't believe it's for a "Draft".
Click to expand...

Yes Charlie Rangle did introduce draft legislation.

For no other reason than to create fear like you see above.
 
Actually just so every one blaming Bush knows...This bill was introduced entirely by Democrats. Yes all of them are democrats, so I ask you why would Democrats submit a bill proposal for a Republican President (and no, Zell Miller wasn't one of them). Who will likely vote for bill intorduced by democrats? My guess would be other democrats, but who knows, apparently everyone thinks different.

I suggest everyone (republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever) actully follow the links provided read the bill through the link to thomas.loc.gov that the OP provided and actually get educated on the subject rather than just jumping to conclusions about everything. An informed voter is the best kind of voter, no matter what party (if any) you affiliate youself with.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Reality's Fringe said:
I believe the bill exists, but I don't believe it's for a "Draft".
Click to expand...

Yes Charlie Rangle did introduce draft legislation.

For no other reason than to create fear like you see above.[/quote]

I guess I misinterpreted? From what I gathered, it wasn't for a "Draft" (like Vietnam, where is was for active combat duty), but for a mandatory "service" program in either the military or a civilian organization. Where the draft would be calling up groups of people for combat, this seems to have you serve in war or peace. Of course, my base comprehension of most things political has never been known as adequate :? .
 
I believe the bill exists, but I don't believe it's for a "Draft".
Click to expand...

Yes Charlie Rangle did introduce draft legislation.

For no other reason than to create fear like you see above.[/quote]

I guess I misinterpreted? From what I gathered, it wasn't for a "Draft" (like Vietnam, where is was for active combat duty), but for a mandatory "service" program in either the military or a civilian organization. Where the draft would be calling up groups of people for combat, this seems to have you serve in war or peace. Of course, my base comprehension of most things political has never been known as adequate :? .[/quote]

Any way you slice it his goal was to scare the middle class, which would have the result of undermining the war on terror.

See the last two pages of this thread as evidence.

CTL
 
ding ding ding
we have a winner

And of course since everyone links 'military' with 'Republicans', and 'mandatory military or civilian service in support of defense' is SO much harder to say than 'draft', and since hardly anyone reads things with more than seven words [such as the bill itself, or my post on page 1 where I mention ALL of the sponsors of the bill are Democratic Congressmen], it suddenly morphs into 'Republicans want a draft!'
 
[quote name='dtcarson']ding ding ding
we have a winner

And of course since everyone links 'military' with 'Republicans', and 'mandatory military or civilian service in support of defense' is SO much harder to say than 'draft', and since hardly anyone reads things with more than seven words [such as the bill itself, or my post on page 1 where I mention ALL of the sponsors of the bill are Democratic Congressmen], it suddenly morphs into 'Republicans want a draft!'[/quote]

Uh of course i read your post.... I was just reiterating what you said in case people missed it :wink:

But to be honestly rarely do I read all the posts in a thread, especially when the OP is so long and has a few links to add. I just dropped the line about moving it then actually read what was said in the 1st post and saw some people naming names when I made my original post and figured I'd throw down the input.
 
I personally don't find the bill so scary, I mean, it's two (paid with military benefits I assume) years of service doing something that acutally matters. If you did it after taking a short hiatus from school, you'd still be only 20-21 when you started as an undergraduate, which means you would be (roughly) 24-25 when you could start your masters. I don't think that two years of paid service is that long.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Any way you slice it his goal was to scare the middle class, which would have the result of undermining the war on terror.
[/quote]

And we certainly wouldn't want anyone using fear for political gains...***cough***Cheney***cough***Bush***cough***Rumsfeld***
 
Actually, it's called conscritpion.

The United States allows for the execution of deserters.

You have to fight, turn around and we shoot you.

In United States leaders vote for you.
 
[quote name='dtcarson'][quote name='Xevious']I would fight for Afghanstan not Iraq. Afghanstan is a war I believe in. Iraq is not.[/quote]

No offense, if you're in the military, whether drafted or volunteered, you should fight and work whereever you're sent. Any other way leads to the increased impotency of a military. I have a civilian job, and my company does, and asks that I do, lots of things I don't 'believe in', but I do them--that's my job. [And no, I don't mean things like 'Go torture and kill all those civilians' like at My Lai, there are of course times to stand up.][/quote]

No offense taken. I am well aware that you really dont have any choice in the matter if you are in the military. I was speaking in hypothetical terms.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dtcarson']ding ding ding
we have a winner

And of course since everyone links 'military' with 'Republicans', and 'mandatory military or civilian service in support of defense' is SO much harder to say than 'draft', and since hardly anyone reads things with more than seven words [such as the bill itself, or my post on page 1 where I mention ALL of the sponsors of the bill are Democratic Congressmen], it suddenly morphs into 'Republicans want a draft!'[/quote]

Uh of course i read your post.... I was just reiterating what you said in case people missed it :wink:

But to be honestly rarely do I read all the posts in a thread, especially when the OP is so long and has a few links to add. I just dropped the line about moving it then actually read what was said in the 1st post and saw some people naming names when I made my original post and figured I'd throw down the input.[/quote]

That's cool :)
My post wasn't directed at you specifically, I appreciate your reiterating the actual facts in this thread that's so far mostly propaganda and willful misunderstandings. Obviously it depends on the full length of the thread, but I try to read all of a thread in which I am interested. And I guess if I could learn to be more terse, I'd get more readers; but I don't like simple 'Me too!' or bandwagon posts, and goshdarnit, there's just so many facts out there to find and discuss!

And two years of paid military service might not be a bad thing--many kids go to college with no idea what they want to do, or how to do it--the military would provide some needed structure in their lives, while offering them real world experience and learning, while earning some money, and possibly qualifying for GI benefits on the outside.
 
i'm glad for once i have asthma, a recruiter told me they won't take me because of that so yay for me. but i do think the military could be a good thing if you aren't sure what direction you want your life to go in, i know people who were like that and now plan to make the military what they do for a living.
 
Speaking of draft, reading all the words, and spin, check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040922/ap_on_el_pr/kerry&printer=1

The headline:
"Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush"

The actual quote:

"Kerry....raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush..... Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush (news - web sites) were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you.""

Do these 'news'people even try anymore? How in Anyone's name does 'Is it possible? I can't tell you' translate to "Draft Likely to Return Under Bush"? Am I even reading the same language as these 'news' reporters? We need to go ahead and face the music, and call 99% of them 'spinmeisters' instead of 'journalists' or 'newspeople.'
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
Do these 'news'people even try anymore? How in Anyone's name does 'Is it possible? I can't tell you' translate to "Draft Likely to Return Under Bush"? Am I even reading the same language as these 'news' reporters? We need to go ahead and face the music, and call 99% of them 'spinmeisters' instead of 'journalists' or 'newspeople.'[/quote]

Good call. The media annoys me more and more every day. I wish there were some way for it to be publically funded somehow so they would just report facts instead of trying to make money by sensationalizing or being influenced by outside parties.
 
Amen.
I wouldn't even mind so much if they held whatever opinions or influences they wanted, *if they admitted it*.
But yes, sensationalism sells, we're in the age of the headline/soundbite, and unfortunately that's all most people read.
Well, I see your point, but if it were publicly funded, then they'd be trying to appease whoever's in power, so as to continue getting funding. I don't have a solution, but I don't know if that would work. Then again, hell, the government funds everything and everyone else, why not.
I think every 'news' person [not the commentators, but the people allegedly reporting news] should be forced to read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, and be trained to be a 'Fair Witness.' One of them was asked 'What color is that house' and the answer was something like 'To my eyes given the current ability to see through the atmosphere, the majority of the side of the house facing me is Blue.' Yes, it's somewhat challenging to follow sometimes, but that's nothing but facts.
Here's a great description, and this is what I would like more newspeople to emulate, and how I try to study things when applicable:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/books/ss_hc.htm
Fair Witness: Person rigorously trained to observe, remember, and report without prejudice, distortion, lapses in memory, or personal involvement.

http://explorersfoundation.org/notebooks/soroti/pages/41.html

"Fair witness is a concept introduced by the sci-fi author, Robert Heinlein, in the book: Stranger in a Strange Land. Heinlien’s fair witness was a specially trained impartial observer. The fair witness had a symbolic white cloak which they donned when they were functioning in their official capacity. Once cloaked they were keenly observant, in a very special way. Their function was much like that of a modern day notary public who witnesses official signings and verifies that the parties involved are duly identified and recognized. But a fair witness goes way beyond that. For instance, in the book, a fair witness was asked: “Do you see that white house over there?” The fair witness replied: “I see a house with two sides visible from this vantage point. Those two sides are white. Is that the one you mean?”

A fair witness in action would observe, note and record all the information about an event. Then later would make a report. The report would be just what the witness saw. No opinions, no conjectures, no subjective coloring of the situation."

That is what a true 'newsreporter' should be, imho. they can certainly have their opinions, and express them in the applicable places, but the front page/news section is *not* that place.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='dtcarson']
Do these 'news'people even try anymore? How in Anyone's name does 'Is it possible? I can't tell you' translate to "Draft Likely to Return Under Bush"? Am I even reading the same language as these 'news' reporters? We need to go ahead and face the music, and call 99% of them 'spinmeisters' instead of 'journalists' or 'newspeople.'[/quote]

Good call. The media annoys me more and more every day. I wish there were some way for it to be publically funded somehow so they would just report facts instead of trying to make money by sensationalizing or being influenced by outside parties.[/quote]

Publicly funded like in China, Russia, Iran, Cuba? :roll:
 
[quote name='blackjaw']gayness...shut down the current administration[/quote]


I'm not even going to start with what's wrong with that statement, but my "gayness" let's me out of this bullshit government shit. :)

Bush isn't passing it, but he can pressure people to do so or he will wreck their political future.

Plus we all know that Bush would pass this if the election were already held.
 
No, I didn't mean funded by the government. Obviously!

I don't know how it would work; it was just wishful thinking. My main point was just agreeing that the media sucks and doesn't really contain hard facts, most of the time.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='blackjaw']gayness...shut down the current administration[/quote]


I'm not even going to start with what's wrong with that statement, but my "gayness" let's me out of this bullshit government shit. :)

Bush isn't passing it, but he can pressure people to do so or he will wreck their political future.

Plus we all know that Bush would pass this if the election were already held.[/quote]

He's going to pressure Republicans to vote for a Democrat introduced bill? That would be interesting to see...How exactly is he going to wreck the politcal future of the democrats who introduced the bill, especially seeing as how they aren't exactly backing him in the upcoming election? Is he going to inject them with a special syrum that makes them Republican? Face facts, this isn't some oddball scheme conjured up by Bush (not to say he deosn't have nay of those), but it's clearly being introduced by Congress and is probably being backed by both sides, but evidently stronger by Democrats. So don't try to shove all the blame for this on the president.
 
Beats me, but if he wants it he can get it passed, and if he doesn't want it he easily can get it to flop.

In order to do anything it has to pass the Republican Congress, and the president can pressure people either way.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Publicly funded like in China, Russia, Iran, Cuba? :roll:[/quote]

Publicly funded like PRI and NPR.

Not federally funded, and no advertisements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top