Topic awaiting preservation: Draft Bill Set for Spring 2005 (Page 1 of 3)

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

The bill proposing a new draft (including women and no college deferment) is set for 2005. This really disgusts me. What kind of Democracy is this? It's not even a democracy anymore, we live in a dictatorship. I'd almost be fine with it, but the college deferment thing sent me over the edge. We're putting an entire generation at risk with this, their education and future.

I have already written a letter to my congressmen, and I strongly urge you to do the same.

Thoughts?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Yeah, if my name get pulled, I'm on the damn bus.

Well, in 2006 I'm 18.

I'm not putting service time, sorry.

I agree with njuice.

I have better things to do with my life than kill people.

--

Do we actually need a draft?
We seem to be doing a good job policing the world, and killing people with the military in its current state.

__________________
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength.

(Edited by counterfeitbacon on 05-25-2004 06:44)

I'd love to go to Canada to get out of the Draft (if implimented) but it seems that plan has been foiled as well. So to Amsterdam it is! haha.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Well the bus I'll be on certainly won't be going to another country. Sorry for the confusion guys, had (and still have) like no time to put into my posts for the moment. I'll explain further a little later.

Interesting Article...but this is somewhat...curious

quote:

---

$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.

---

Ummm...report to Bush on March 31, 2005? Heh, I didn't know that Bush was automatically President in 2005. In fact, the more I look at this, the more I find it lacking in Credibility.

Bill S.89 - Yup, looks like a Draft all right...but it has only been Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services - it hasn't been voted on, or in any manner, passed.
Bill HR 163 - the "sister" bill of S 89 for the House of Representatives - yup, a Draft Bill. Bill Status : 1/7/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
2/3/2003:
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
2/3/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.
So, it hasn't been voted on, or passed, either.

This bit of information is worrying...that such Bills are being considered. However, the rest of that WebSite, Congress.Org...well, not my cup of tea.

Note that they must both pass each government arm, and then be signed by the President, to become Law.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

"Your Country 'bleeds' You" Or is it 'needs' you.. I forget.

QUOTATION: I have noted that persons with bad judgment are most insistent that we do what they think best. (Lionel Abel )

^Meaning?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

OK, here's the deal, read the scenario, understand the scenario, then read the question, then give your best answer. No answers are provided and there probably is not one correct answer. It is just between you and your soul to make a decision that will demonstrate your integrity. what would you do? With all your honor and dignity what would you do?

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact... There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods There are huge masses of water all over you.... You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destroying power and is ripping everything away with it. Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is - it's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away...forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo. A unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

And here's the question: (Please give an honest answer)

Would you select color film, or go with the simplicity of classic black and white ?

QUOTATION: I have noted that persons with bad judgment are most insistent that we do what they think best. (Lionel Abel )



(Edited by Xpirex on 05-25-2004 17:10)

Rescue Mr. Bush, then "stage" the photo with him for my Pulitzer...

I would choose Black and White, of course...

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Meaning: There used to be a saying in the UK during some the war draft promotion which said "Your Country Needs You" by Lord Kitchener. and suckered 1000's of healthy young men to get there heads blown off.

quote:

---

Poster Title Your country needs you
Country of Origin United Kingdom
Date 1914-1916
Artist Alfred Leete
Printer Victoria House Printing Co. Ltd., London
Size 29 1/2" x 20"
Sources Unknown

---

QUOTATION: Those who live by the sword.. get shot by those who don't..



[edit] checked for political incorrectness. [/edit]

(Edited by Xpirex on 05-25-2004 17:41)

Okaayyy...there is one in America, from the Second World War, titled "Uncle Sam wants you!" With a big Uncle Sam on it...

But what is your point?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I'd never trust that mustache.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Duh.. Needs.. bleeds? I give up.

QUOTATION: Those who live by the sword.. get shot by those who don't..

Charlie Rangel's bill & Sen. Holling's bill.

Fantastic idea, I'm a big supporter of Charlie Rangel.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

(Edited by Jestah on 05-25-2004 18:14)

I'm not gonna say anything other than that, if any of those bills pass.... I know a lot of people who aren't gonna be living in this country anymore.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. There are a few politicians supporting these bills, nothing more. The bills were introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). I just thought it'd be nice to say the EVIL REPUBLICANS are not responsible for this one.

In any case, there are a handful of others from both parties supporting this, but hardly the support it needs to go through. I think any polititian who would vote for this knows exactly what would happen to his career.

Even so, the pentagon has said there is no need for a draft and is actually opposed to it, as have Bush and Rumsfeld on numerous occasions. http://www.sss.gov also says the following:

quote:

---

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

---

edit: Jestah, missed your post. You actually support a draft? Or were you being sarcastic? If not, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Some information I dug up for anyone interested:
http://www.rherald.com/news/2004/0506/Letters/l01.html
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3802
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/051004/Local/ST016.shtml
http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html
http://www.russoforpresident.com/proof5.php

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-25-2004 18:41)

Yea. Those are the same people that said if Bush/Gore wins I'll be moving to Canada.

Sanzen, both bills were written to deter war. The idea is if there is equal chance of the wealthy and well connected's children being sent to the front lines then the wealthy and well connected -who run this country- won't support war.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

quote:

---

I just thought it'd be nice to say the EVIL REPUBLICANS are not responsible for this one.

---

Actually, the point of it is the combat the EVIL BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I guess you can spin it tht way if you wish. To institute a draft to deter war. Sounds like fixing one problem by taking away more freedoms. Kinda the same way the Bush Admin. gets criticized for the patriot act eh?

And if those are the same people who say if Bush wins they are moving to Canada, then I say "Don't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Good riddance."

If this is a political ploy to combat the Evil Bush Administration, they are playing with our freedoms for political reasons. But what else is new.

After looking at all the co-sponsors of Rangel's Bill (note that Hollings has no co-sponsors) I find that all the people sponsoring this are democrats as well.

Neil Abercrombie ? Democrat
Donna Christensen - Democrat
John Conyers - Democrat
Alcee Hastings ? Democrat
John Lewis ? Democrat
James Moran ? Democrat
Pete Stark ? Democrat
Corrine Brown ? Democrat
William Clay ? Democrat
Elijah Cummings ? Democrat
Sheila Jackson-Lee ? Democrat
Jim McDermott ? Democrat
Eleanor Norton ? Democrat
Nydia Velazquez - Democrat

Who was responsible for reinstating the selective service program in 1980, Jimmy Carter. I say to hell with democrats.

My advice to anyone opposed to a draft, VOTE REPUBLICAN.

quote:

---

Summary of Hollings Bill: Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service

---

Am I wrong here, or does this appear to be more than a draft? Sounds more like mandatory conscription than selective service where names are pulled from a hat, so to speak.

In any case Jestah, how exactly will this deter war again? Sounds like a load of crap to me. As if those who run the country (ie the wealthy and well connected)would not find a way around this.

Ramasax

Since when are Democrats interested in avoiding war? That's a new one for me.

I do not favor reinstituting conscription. Besides our current volunteer forces seem to be quite able without it.

As far as I understand it, the military is never fond of the draft. They prefer recruits who are interested in being there and don't like having to get an influx of people who aren't motivated. It's the politicians who like the draft for one reason or another.

And on a historical note. When I was still a flaming liberal at the age of 18, I did go and register for the draft but I fully intended to embrace the maple leaf should the day come that I were to be called. I'm not proud of that but that's how I saw things at the time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

I'm not proud of that but that's how I saw things at the time.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is your view of it now (if you were of an age where you would be affected by the draft, that is).

Now I think it is better to go in eyes wide open and serve. The fact that I am past the draft age does not affect my decision on this. My views on life are what bring me to that conclusion.

If a person is utterly opposed to warfare, then there is still such a thing as conscientious objection. If a person feels that strongly about it, then I think they should stand up for their ideals come what may. I would not support the draft except in the most dire of circumstances. So I do not favor a situation where people need to face that choice.

When I was 18, my *only* concern was for my own welfare and nobody else's. But one thing I did say at the time was that I would NEVER return to the nation I was not willing to support, if it came to me leaving.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-25-2004 21:32)

QUOTATION: Those who live by the sword.. get shot by those who don't..

That's one thing I don't totally get. How is it that Blair is so hawkish? I thought Labor was your version of our Dems. Why was he such a strong supporter of this war? ( that question is directed primarily at the Brits among us )

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

All I'm saying is that I'm not going to allow anyone to carelessly throw my life away, anyone other than me. They'd have to pay me enough money to live off of for the rest of my life, at the cost of sacrificing my education in order to impliment a draft. That's what it would cost to get me to inlist the in military.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

In any case Jestah, how exactly will this deter war again? Sounds like a load of crap to me. As if those who run the country (ie the wealthy and well connected)would not find a way around this.

---

Ramasax, the idea is that if everyone is drafted there is no way around it. I encourage to look into the history of the modern warfare of the United States, specifically relating to how many of those involved in deciding to go to war have children of an age where they could go to war and whether or not they do/did.

The results aren't very surprising. Those involved in the decision - Congress and the White House - generally have children of age. Of course its very rare for those children to go to war. You obviously disagree, but I believe if all those who voted in favor of war with Iraq had children who would be in the front lines, many - if not all - would have voted differently.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I dunno. All this conversation seems terribly slanted and misinformed. Pure gut reactions to emotional topics.

Far be it for me to break from the pack.

I think the draft is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea birthed in the heads of bad people interested in doing bad things to good people. It's a system that is in existence for one purpose: attrition. Wars of attrition are awesome for countries in capitalist economies. It employs thousands of people in temporary work that will terminate, often, with the termination of the person. It creates a broad base of people who need services: guns, medical, guns and guns. Finally, it clears out people who are often unemployed (18-25 year-olds, fresh from high school/college).

Me, being a pacifist who wouldn't kill someone just because his government told him to do so, I would rather spend eternity in a prison than enter into a draft. I'm not one of those people who said I would leave the country if Bush won (though I came close), but I have absolutely nothing important enough in my life to justify taking someone else's because an impersonal government said, "hey, go kill those sneeches with only one star on their bellies." Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

The draft went out of style with world-wars. The day I see a draft instituted here in America is the day I go look for beach-front property in Nevada, because California just fell off the continent. These days, it's not good for politicians, it's not good for economies, and it's not good for the "hearts & minds" of the people from which the draft is ... well ... drafting.


...the minutiae returns.

quote:

---

Jestah said: Ramasax, the idea is that if everyone is drafted there is no way around it. I encourage to look into the history of the modern warfare of the United States, specifically relating to how many of those involved in deciding to go to war have children of an age where they could go to war and whether or not they do/did.

The results aren't very surprising. Those involved in the decision - Congress and the White House - generally have children of age. Of course its very rare for those children to go to war. You obviously disagree, but I believe if all those who voted in favor of war with Iraq had children who would be in the front lines, many - if not all - would have voted differently.

---

Rather than encourage me to look into something as vague as this, simply provide me with a reference. If you have one of course.

Anyhow, I am not arguing this point Jestah, and I do realize the children of the rich have been protected from such things. Well, not really protected, they just don't volunteer for the military if they don't want to. The same choice all of us have.

All I am saying is that I do not think a draft would stop them from finding a way around it, as they always have in the past. Even if their children were "sent to war" their connections would be able to place them in less volitaile areas to serve their time.

They would not serve on the front lines. The poor and middle classes will always be prominent on the front-lines simply because that is where a majority of them are suited to serve. Those who have had the privelage of a wealthy childhood have also had the privelage of fine private schools and the best educations money can buy. They would by no means be "grunts" but officers serving somewhere far from the front lines. We had the draft in Vietnam, and this is how it worked then and how it would work now.

Basically what this comes down to is our current system, where people VOLUNTEER willingly to serve and the proposed system you support where people are FORCED unwillingly to serve a minimum of 2 years. Every American citizen between the ages of 18-25 would be forced into service. How's that for a morale buster? Let me say this again so you understand, not just the rich, but everyone from all walks of life, whether they wanted to or not would be FORCED to serve, forced to give up 2 years of their lives whether they wanted to or not. Seems like a very large proposal simply to make the richies go to war, or not. Shit man, not all war is avoidable. Sometimes it comes to you whether you like it or not. You also then have the people who make the decisions not making such decisions with clarity of thought that is needed, but with a motive to protect their children.

Yet again we have Liberals ranting and raving about "our rights" but at the same time with their other face, supporting something like this, which takes away all rights. The hypocrisy sickens me.

Not only is this ridiculous, it is an incredulous thought, and the fact that you are in support of such a thing totally surprises me according to your stance on everything. The patriot act is nothing compared to the implications of this. To think that the solution to less war would be to force an entire generation of our youth into service is like fixing a hole in the roof by demolishing the house. Since this seems to be a predominantly Democrat idea, maybe this is how JK plans on lowering the unemployment rate?

In any case, it is a laughable bill which will not garner the support it needs to pass, so we are really wasting our time discussing it at this point. Our elected representatives hopefully know what is good for them and their careers in politics, and at an astounding 80% of Americans opposed to such a thing, they would vote for it at their own peril.

Ramasax

You could always just say you were gay! Hah! At least we know that Bush hates the homosexuals. Homosexuals are evil, but forcing someone to die for something they dont believe in isn't!

Damn I love this administration!

[edit]
I mean, even though it's most likely not going to pass. The point of posting the article to me was the fact that it was even considered. The only people who actually support the bill are the people who aren't going to be effected by it. At least we know, if Kerry is elected - there'd be no way it would get signed.
[/edit]


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-26-2004 06:34)

Shit. I agree with Ramasax on almost all his points, and I read a new post by twitch.

*leaves to go get Satan a jacket*

quote:

---

twitch said:These days, it's not good for politicians, it's not good for economies, and it's not good for the "hearts & minds" of the people from which the draft is ... well ... drafting.

---

Yeah, I'd say that about sums it up.

quote:

---

Sanzen said: You could always just say you were gay! Hah! At least we
know that Bush hates the homosexuals. Homosexuals are evil, but forcing
someone to die for something they dont believe in isn't!

Damn I love this administration!

---

No no no my friend, there is no way in hell I am letting you pull the Bush administration into this one, they take the blame for far too much already. ROFL.

Even if Bush is re-elected there is no way this would be signed, barring an all out assault on US soil of course. This adminstration has nothing to do with the bill, and have even said it is opposed to the idea. A handful of less-than-prominent democrats, and Jestah, support it. The Republicans would probably reject it on that basis alone because we all know they never agree on anything.

And about Bush "hating" gays, that remark doesn't even warrant a comment. You are a silly person.

quote:

---

Sanzen said: I mean, even though it's most likely not going to pass. The point of posting the article to me was the fact that it was even considered. The only people who actually support the bill are the people who aren't going to be effected by it.

---

Indeed, it is being considered ... by DEMOCRATS!!

quote:

---

Sanzen said: At least we know, if Kerry is elected - there'd be no way it would get signed.

---

Riiiight.... How do we know this? Upon what criteria are you basing this conclusion? Please, enlighten me.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-26-2004 07:16)

The reason I say Kerry would never sign the bill, is because of all the flack he caught for tossing away his medals of honor.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

All I am saying is that I do not think a draft would stop them from finding a way around it, as they always have in the past. Even if their children were "sent to war" their connections would be able to place them in less volitaile areas to serve their time.

They would not serve on the front lines. The poor and middle classes will always be prominent on the front-lines simply because that is where a majority of them are suited to serve. Those who have had the privelage of a wealthy childhood have also had the privelage of fine private schools and the best educations money can buy. They would by no means be "grunts" but officers serving somewhere far from the front lines. We had the draft in Vietnam, and this is how it worked then and how it would work now.

---

Ramasax, in a country of nearly 300 million there must be tens of thousands of wealthy or well connected children who would fall into the mandatory draft. I don't think it possible to hide every one of these children but certainly a sitting president will never have his child on the front lines. Of course that really doesn't leave this bill ineffective.

One of the biggest flaws of our volunteer system is those making the decisions don't have any real connection with those doing the fighting. If, God forbid, a bomb were to go off in Iraq tomorrow killing 5,000 troops, its unlikely Bush wouldn't be personally effected. While his daily routine and campaign message might change, its unlikely that he would come in connect with someone he knows who was personally effected.

On the other hand, if this mandatory draft were to go into effect, everyone around Bush would be personally effected because it could very well be their family or friends. Imagine how it would effect the legislative branch. I don't know on average how many constituents a Congressman has who are personally involved in Iraq but imagine its a low number. Imagine if every person in the district had a personal tie to the war in Iraq. I find it hard to believe the majority of them would support war.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Jestah, you dont think that people closely related to Bush would be lifted safely out of this "mandatory" draft? I mean, granted, he is the most generous president in history as far as giving things (money and amnesty) to his benefactors (his cabinet members and supporters). I don't see why he wouldn't do the same in this instance. Although, it is a bit rash to assume this, I don't see why it wouldn't be out of the question.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Sanzen said:
And about Bush "hating" gays, that remark doesn't even warrant a comment. You are a silly person

---

Sorry to get off-topic here, but as a gay man living during Bush's regime here in America, I can say, with solidity in my voice, that if he doesn't hate us, he sure is terrified of us -- and for a man in control of the strongest country in the world, they're the same emotion.

Sorry, I accidently clicked Submit after replying to only one of your points.

quote:

---

Basically what this comes down to is our current system, where people VOLUNTEER willingly to serve and the proposed system you support where people are FORCED unwillingly to serve a minimum of 2 years. Every American citizen between the ages of 18-25 would be forced into service. How's that for a morale buster? Let me say this again so you understand, not just the rich, but everyone from all walks of life, whether they wanted to or not would be FORCED to serve, forced to give up 2 years of their lives whether they wanted to or not. Seems like a very large proposal simply to make the richies go to war, or not. Shit man, not all war is avoidable. Sometimes it comes to you whether you like it or not. You also then have the people who make the decisions not making such decisions with clarity of thought that is needed, but with a motive to protect their children.

---

I realize everyone would be forced to serve, thats the point. I'm not limiting this to just the wealthy because there are plenty of low income families who are very well connected and could avoid military service.

I don't see why making a decision without any personal connection to the situation would be considered making a decision with clarity. Without a personal connection to the situation you can't make a real informed decision. Unfortunately, with corporate lobbiests and contracts awarded, thers a lot to gain from going to war with a country. Friends of the Administration are making billions from this war - quite literally. Its very easy to vote yes on a war thats going to make your friends and family wealthy but I wouldn't consider that deciding with clarity. I'd consider that deciding without all interests considered. If you only have a connection to the wealthy and well connected, you aren't adaequately considering all sides.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Jestah: There is no getting through to you, believe what you want, I give up.

edit: On second thought, how about we as American citizens simply skip the draft, and start electing some people who are not rich? Seems a better deal than enslaving people to keep the rich in check. How many in congress are millionaires? I don't know the exact statistics, but I would guess it to be roughly around 99.9% Or maybe we can just have a king or queen or a dictator or something like that so we don't have a choice in the matter.

My final word, take it for what you will: Proposing a bill to reinstate the draft simply on the basis of a hypothetical is assanine!

Twitch, I do not agree that he is a homophobe, he simply wants to protect marriage, in a traditional sense, is all. Does he or anyone in the government have the right to do so, no, but that hasn't stopped any politician in the past either. This is not fear, but a clinging to moral values which some people still hold very high. It is not hate either. I understand your position, and it is only a matter of time anyhow, no matter who is elected.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-26-2004 08:30)

quote:

---

Jestah, you dont think that people closely related to Bush would be lifted safely out of this "mandatory" draft? I mean, granted, he is the most generous president in history as far as giving things (money and amnesty) to his benefactors (his cabinet members and supporters). I don't see why he wouldn't do the same in this instance. Although, it is a bit rash to assume this, I don't see why it wouldn't be out of the question.

---

Sanzen, again, thats not really the point. If this bill were signed into law Bush's family and close friends who are of age would be as safe from Iraq as he were from Vietnam. While that would certainly be the case, his daughters graduating classmates wouldn't. People around his hometown of Crawford, Texas wouldn't. All friends and family of those in his country club wouldn't. Waiters and waitresses at restaurants he visits regularly wouldn't be.

A few weeks ago I came home from Pennsylvania and a classmate of my little sister died crossing the street at sixteen. While I never met the kid I was terribly upset because my sister was upset. This is along the same lines. Feelings have a tendency of carrying over. In a typical day, Pres. Bush has very little interaction with those whos lives are in his hands. If things were changed so that on a typical day a quarter of those he spoke with had strong connections to the war in Iraq, I believe things would be different.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01