Jump to content

America Reinstituting the Draft

ordos45
 Share

Recommended Posts

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
Posted

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.

$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: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, 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.

Also no fleeing to Canada this time folks...Bush negotiated the "smart border declaration" in 2001. 

Now to those of you, like me, who will be effected by this, let me say "We are about to embark on the Holy Crusade to rid the world of Islam..."  *rolls eyes*  How I hate Bush...

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

How incredibly amusing. Now what needs to happen is for it go through, and then face a revolt which will lead to mass hysteria and the collapse of the government...

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What needs to happen, it needs to be passed by our Republican controlled Congress (no chance of it failing).  Then yeah riots in American streets.

exatreide

exatreide

Posted
Posted

Im glad i have the money to buy that desert eagle... ;)

We took the draft away for a reason...people didnt want it, and I doubt feelings for it have changed among the general population

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Baby Boomers remember Vietnam...they remember their friends being sent home by the thousand.  I found my name on the Vietnam Wall while I was in D.C. last time.  Did a little research, he died in a traffic wreck in South Vietnam.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

I was under the impression that the US military does not want the draft back. I've heard it quoted that some folks in the DoD see the draft as a hindrance rather than a help. Essentially, the modern soldier is a specialist so skilled and well-trained that anything less would simply hurt the armed forces. We don't want hundreds of thousands of grunts; that just gets our own people killed. We want a good number of professional soldiers who have dedicated their lives to the art of war, not a few months. If the draft goes into effect and young men and women are sent to the front lines with such little training, it will be a waste. Further, I doubt the two bills will enact such a thing, I believe, judging by the wording of both bills, is to put lots of young men and women, the draft-ees, into service and support roles for the front-line troops. We will become a part of the US divisional wedge, or, the men and women who don't fight, but enable others to fight. That, to me, makes sense, but is still something I'd like to avoid.

DukeLeto

DukeLeto

Posted
Posted
Also no fleeing to Canada this time folks...Bush negotiated the "smart border declaration" in 2001.

How incredibly hypocritical.  He dodged the draft, but now he's going to sentence us all to death?  Typical Republican.

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Has Bush actually come out for the draft? As far as I know it isn't widely supported in any of the 3 levels of government.

Haven't heard him speak on it, though even if he didn't support it, it's election year.  Best to stay shut up either way.

Wolfwiz, it would make more sense in a support role, like you said we want trained specialists and professionals, sending in 18 year olds with two months training to occupy a nation is just asking for scandals and deaths.  Hopefully this thing will die in committee.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

I would hate to be a general under the Bush Administration. I wonder how all those military absentee ballots will go now...

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

Written with Tom Clancy, eh?  Wow, that's a bit of a surprise.  Clancy is just right of emprwrm!

Great writer, though.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

Conscription?! If the government needs to get army numbers up, then they should do so by persuasion, not compulsion. After all, they are supposed to be a democracy, aren't they?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

There's a good reason why some people consider them to be two factions of the same party... Especially given the fact that the "liberals" of the Democratic Party aren't all that liberal after all:

USPrimaries031002.gif

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Where's Hillary Clinton compared to that?

And, Edric, I understand and appreciate the point you make by showing how close the two American parties really are to each other, but, nonetheless, the fact is that Americans see them as quite separate entities -- entities that dominate the US political scene with excessive bipartisan bickering.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Your two parties are extremely close in their actions - but quite far from each other in their rhethoric. I believe that is the reason why most Americans see them as separate and opposing entities. The Democrats talk like liberals and the Republicans talk like conservatives. But they both act like conservatives. The Republicans just happen to be more conservative than the Democrats.

Look at Howard Dean. He uses the rhethoric of the radical left, but when it comes to his actual policies, he's closer to Bush than Kerry!

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

As I said, I understand and appreciate what you are saying, and I am not disagreeing. What I am saying, however, is that it seems almost impossible (from where I'm sitting) to dislodge all this bipartisan bickering that hinders so much progress in government. Do you think such an attitude -- service to the rhetoric rather than the ideal -- can ever be defeated?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

The American political system seems to be built in such a way that prevents third parties from ever challenging the two main ones - but that leaves open the possibility of changing the orientation of one of your two major parties. It has happened before.

So my advice to Americans who want to see a real change is this: Don't build third parties. Infiltrate and hijack one of the two main ones.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.