RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Re-introducing the draft (aka Mexico is nice in the summer)

Quote:

---

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.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp 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.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

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

---

Quote:

---

"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."

---

Quote:

---

Claim: The U.S. military will be reinstating the draft by Spring 2005.

Status: Probably not.

Example: [congress.org, 2004]

(They quote the same article Dave posted, and then the following:)

Origins: As U.S. military involvement in Vietnam came to an end in 1973, so did the draft. For the first time since the days of World War II, the U.S. military shifted to an all-volunteer force; all vacancies in the armed forces were filled through recruitment and re-enlistments rather than conscription. (The requirement for young men to register with the Selective Service was not abolished until 1975, however, and it was reinstated in 1980.)

As recent U.S. military involvement in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has required the largest commitment of American troops since the mid-1970s, and the military has had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up additional reserves, and extend tours of duty by a year in order to maintain adequate staffing levels, the specter of a resurrected draft has been looming on the mind of many a young person. Although the possibility of a reinstatement of conscription cannot be ruled out, a renewal of the draft anytime soon appears unlikely, and one implemented as early as June 2005 seems rather improbable.

As reflected in the message quoted above, the draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. beween the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service's advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both the Congressional bills were introduced back in January 2003 and have languished in committee ever since with seemingly little support, and the Selective Service maintains that the timing of ads to fill draft board positions was coincidental, part of a process of filling expired board positions that has been underway for several years:

About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms as unpaid board members. [Selective Service spokesman Pat] Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999.

That means hiring replacements has been going on for several years. Confusion arose in recent weeks when someone posted the hiring notice on www.defendamerica.mil, a Pentagon Web site about the war on terror, even though the Selective Service System is not a part of the Defense Department.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation — Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member," it said.

Several newspapers around the world wrote stories, leading to questions about whether the government was planning to restart drafting enlistees. The stories appeared as news media wrote increasingly about the Pentagon's extensive mobilization of National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq.

"It was a case of bad timing because of the war in Iraq and news about deployments," Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said of the Web posting. "It created a tempest in a teacup."

Opinions — from both those inside and outside the military — differ as to what the manpower requirements of the U.S. armed forces will be in the near future, and whether the services will be able to continue to meet those requirements under the current all-volunteer system. And certainly not everyone agrees that general conscription is the best solution to potential staffing shortfalls, for a variety of reasons:

While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost.

"The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

A fundamental problem with a draft today, experts say, is that the historic two-year period of conscription isn't enough time to get a return on the investment in training that modern soldiers require. "There's just too much equipment [draftees] could break," Pike said.

A related problem: the cost of feeding, clothing, training and paying a large influx of unskilled personnel would gobble up funds the military needs for other purposes.

"We're a personnel-based institution," Wong said. "If we have a lot more people walking in the door, it would suck up all of our resources."

Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005:

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

"It will take 193 days from the time that we get started until the first person is presented to the Department of Defense," said Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service. It would then take a year and a half to two years to train the draftees and form them into new combat units, Krepinovich said.

Even if the draft started up again, it might be of a much more limited nature than in previous years, with only those who could fill specialized positions in certain fields (e.g., health care, linguistics, computer technology) being conscripted.

There is as yet no definitive answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will reinstitute a draft. Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly — another event of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks could prompt some rapid shifts in government policy and public opinion.

Last updated: 25 May 2004

---

Quote:

---

Stupid Dogg said:
okay but what about anyone with religious beliefs that demand they adhere to political neutrality? why should they be forced into it?

---

Quote:

---

Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005:

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

---

Quote:

---

I knew a guy who was in the German army as a draftee for a while. He knew some draftees who ran amok with a tank one night. Professional soldiers would never fuck around like that.

---

Quote:

---

Dave said:
My wife's dad was in the Swedish draft.

He thinks its dumb. Professional soldiers hate draftees. They're there because they have to be, not because they want to be, and so have poor morale and aren't interesting in training. He thinks draftees are natural born cannon fodder. That's what that guy Lt Col Wong is getting at in his comment in Darknight's article from snopes.

I knew a guy who was in the German army as a draftee for a while. He knew some draftees who ran amok with a tank one night. Professional soldiers would never fuck around like that.

Quote:

---

Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005:

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

---

So I guess we just wait and see. Personally, I think it would be political suicide for any administration to do this. I just can't see Congress doing it.

And if it does, I hope you guys have decent Spanish. Except for Pfc PJP, USMC, who'll be cleaning latrines in Kirkuk.

---

I would probably request assignment in Abu Grahib Prison.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
This whole "draft" movement is a bunch of Democrats trying to scare potential voters into thinking that George W. Bush plans some mass conscription of the youth of America.

---

Quote:

---

Military draft discussed but still unlikely
05/03/2004

By Scott Rank

(U-WIRE) AMES, Iowa -- As some politicians argue the need for more troops in Iraq, a few government officials proposed a solution that is a politically sensitive issue for baby boomers: Using the military draft.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested reviving the draft as part of an effort to include people from different economic backgrounds in the War on Terror.

Hagel, who spoke to the committee April 20, told the Washington Post his main interest in the draft is considered so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the less affluent, bear the burden of fighting the War on Terror.

He doesn't expect the bill to be passed, but he thinks with American forces stretched thin and the Iraq conflict apparently continuing indefinitely, "this is a steam engine coming right down the track at us," he said.

He's not the only one who thinks more troops are necessary. Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said 20,000 troops due to come home in June will have their tours extended by 90 days, according to Associated Press.

Iowa State University students believe reinstating the draft would ignite a political tinderbox.

"As far as I know, it would be a very bad time politically," said Daniel Snodgrass, senior in computer engineering. "The Republicans wouldn't do this right now because that would doom any Middle East involvement. If it would happen, the morale wouldn't be nearly as high if there were a draft."

Other students said they thought reinstating the draft would sever the already fragile links between Republicans and Democrats. Marcia Purdy, senior in women's studies whose brother served in Vietnam as an enlistee, said it would further polarize the political parties.

"I think our country is very divided right now, and I think there's a lot of hostilities between two main parties," she said. "Something like [reinstating the draft] would be a very explosive thing to do."

Hagel's suggestion was controversial, but he doesn't stand alone. In January 2003, Sen. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced a bill titled "Universal National Service Act of 2003," which would require all men and women between 18 and 26 to serve a designated term in the military.

The bill probably won't materialize into a law, since it was sent to a committee last year and hasn't gained any momentum. Nevertheless, it's strongly opposed by Iowa senators. Republican Charles Grassley has said he believes the most effective army is a volunteer one, not a compulsory one.

"[Sen. Grassley] would never use it unless it was for the defense of our country," said Beth Levine, Grassley's press secretary. "He feels this is the best way to have a military: a military of volunteers."

Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin could not be reached for comment.

If the United States mandated compulsory military service, it would join 51 other countries that already do so. Youth in other countries serve as little as six months (Romania) or as much as three years (Cambodia).

A draft usually isn't necessary unless there's a severe shortage of troops on the front lines. During World War I, enough volunteers filled to ranks to make the draft unnecessary. However, a great need for troops could easily change the situation, said Charles Dobbs, professor of history.

"It's been very difficult throughout history to meet huge manpower needs when there's a huge conflict without having some kind of mandatory system to acquire soldiers," he said.

He added the draft provide the bulk of soldiers in the Vietnam War.

"Most of the army men in Vietnam were there because of the draft," he said.

---

Quote:

---

It ain't gonna happen.

---

Quote:

---

Hagel, who spoke to the committee April 20, told the Washington Post his main interest in the draft is considered so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the less affluent, bear the burden of fighting the War on Terror.

---

Quote:

---

Dave said:
I don't get that at all.

I have no problem with a professional soldier getting killed or injured. Its their job. I once toyed with the idea of becoming a soldier. Its has a certain patriotic appeal, to serve your country. You join up, you run the risk.

A conscript has no choice. They get thrust into abyssmal conditions and shot at. They watch their friends die, and get shot or blown up themselves. And they have no choice in it. Either they do it, or they get gaoled.

Where is the liberty and freedom in that?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
I haven't really been paying attention to the conversation after this post, but I had to adress this before anything else.

Quote:

---

Dave said:
I don't get that at all.

I have no problem with a professional soldier getting killed or injured. Its their job. I once toyed with the idea of becoming a soldier. Its has a certain patriotic appeal, to serve your country. You join up, you run the risk.

A conscript has no choice. They get thrust into abyssmal conditions and shot at. They watch their friends die, and get shot or blown up themselves. And they have no choice in it. Either they do it, or they get gaoled.

Where is the liberty and freedom in that?

---

Dude, I live here, and I plan to stay here consistently. I know that while this country has some problems, others have A LOT more than this one. And that makes me grateful.

Taking these facts into mind, I don't think there should be any dispute on why I'd serve at the drop of a hat. I got a debt to pay and a (almost)trouble free life to insure. Also, if I weren't so selfish, I'd say that I have American citizens to protect.

It should be the right of the country to call upon its inhabitants--Who have been given rights by the country itself--To protect and pre-empt.

And as those Tom Clancy commercials say, "Freedom isn't free." If you're going to be lazy and not make damn sure that you as an individual have insured it's place at where you live (IF you're very able to do so), you don't deserve freedom.

---

Quote:

---

Just a couple of questions to toss out, for conversation's sake:

Is the military the only way to give something back to the country?

As a follow-up queation of sorts, do the taxes we pay to help keep the country running count as giving something back to our country?

---

Quote:

---

If an American citizen doesn't believe in a war that America is fighting is right, should he still be made to serve and possibly give his life for a cause he doesn't support?

---

Quote:

---

Take the Iraq war, which many people do not support. Should the American citizens who honestly don't believe the Iraq war is a just one be forced to fight it and die in it? Is that the best way for them to give something back to their country?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

Just a couple of questions to toss out, for conversation's sake:

Is the military the only way to give something back to the country?

As a follow-up queation of sorts, do the taxes we pay to help keep the country running count as giving something back to our country?

---

This is exactly what military action protects. Your ability to keep the country running and give people better lives and allow them to live said lives to the fullest with as little violence as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If an American citizen doesn't believe in a war that America is fighting is right, should he still be made to serve and possibly give his life for a cause he doesn't support?

---

I don't see the conundrum when taking this into mind.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
I'm not sure I understand your answer here, or how it relates to my question. Would you mind clarifying this for me?

---

Quote:

---

Um...there was no conundrum.

---

All questions are conundrums.....

....Er, I'd like to think so......I just wanted to use the word conundrum!

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
I'm not sure I understand your answer here, or how it relates to my question. Would you mind clarifying this for me?

---

Doing taxes and being productive citizens doesn't necessarily mean that you're "giving back something". It mainly means that you're insuring the inhabitants (you included) have better lives.

Those examples you put forth in almost no immediate way compare to keeping your country and all within it safe--TRULY giving something back.

More succinct: In doing those things, you're not giving back to the country. You're living in it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Um...there was no conundrum.

---

All questions are conundrums.....

....Er, I'd like to think so......I just wanted to use the word conundrum!

---

Quote:

---

As an American citizen, you elected the officials to who make these decisions, they were elected because they were going to make the right decisions in America's eyes.

---

Quote:

---

Dave said:
Your government should be allowed to put you in harms way and make you die?

---

Quote:

---

But what if you didn't elect them? You voted for the losing party?

Aren't you then suffering from the tyranny of the majority?

If you feel the patriotic urge to serve your country, then, with all blessings, join up voluntarily. But don't make those who don't want to have to catch a bullet.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
If you're living in America and are knowingly declared as an American citizen, then yes. You should still be made to do so. As an American citizen, you elected the officials to who make these decisions, they were elected because they were going to make the right decisions in America's eyes. You can't bypass this by saying you as an individual do not stand for what the government does. We live in a democracy, a system from which the decisions to do things arise--A system that uses everyone's voice as a mouth piece. And you knew that from the start. You knew EXACTLY what would come from it; views you don't support, and views you do support. Regardless of either view, you're obligated to follow the country's orders. I don't see the conundrum when taking this into mind. if you don't like that system, then leave.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Yes. If you don't have trust in what your government does. Then I repeat: leave.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Yes. If you don't have trust in what your government does. Then I repeat: leave.

---

...this is a representative democracy, not a fascist dictatorship.

---

Right. Representing the philosophy of majority opinion.

Example: Majority voted for Bush to make the important decisions. Guess what decision he made.

If you see this as a dictatorship, then why exactly don't you do what I recommended earlier; start a revolt. I mean, I may not like that outcome myself, but it would sure as hell put some credibility into the words of the people who complain and complain about America's lack of justice and fair civil rights and all around like tocompare it to Nazi Germany, but still live in it at the same time.

Hint hint!



Edit: DAMN COPYRIGHT IMAGES!!!

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

That's so completely the opposite of what our founding fathers intended, it's not even funny.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
.......Are you really the kind of people who would force someone else to go because you're afraid?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Right. Representing the philosophy of majority opinion.

Example: Majority voted for Bush to make the important decisions. Guess what decision he made.

---

Quote:

---

If you see this as a dictatorship, then why exactly don't you do what I recommended earlier; start a revolt.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
No offense Animalman, but I seem to remember the founding fathers founding the system that you're comparing to a dictatorship.

---