Sign In
Register
Help
http://www.congress....=ua_congressorg
US Draft
#1
Killerconvic 
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:00 PM
| 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...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. |
Sam's gay
MultiQuote
#2
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:02 PM
I think it's good that women are finally going to be drafted (granted that this bill passes). They whine that they want equal say, etc., and yet don't want to serve. If you can vote, you should serve.
Funny how the draft (very unpopular) would occur after the elections.
Funny how the draft (very unpopular) would occur after the elections.
Sam's gay
#3
Ferret Overlord
- Citizen Snips
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 4,558
- Joined: 21-February 03
Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:24 PM
Their having a draft?!
WTF?!
And true. Women complain about wanting equal rights, but half of them don't do any of the dangerous jobs!
Though there are some smart ones that realize that if they want rights, they can work for them.
(No offense, Glam)
WTF?!
And true. Women complain about wanting equal rights, but half of them don't do any of the dangerous jobs!
Though there are some smart ones that realize that if they want rights, they can work for them.
(No offense, Glam)
This post has been edited by Garunda Te: 22 May 2004 - 11:09 AM
HI! I'M BACK SPORADICALLY! Nobody probably remembers me :(
#4
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:29 PM
Garunda, the debate forum is not supposed to have insanity in it. Did you honestly need
| QUOTE |
| But they're having a draft! WTF?! OMFGWTF?! ROFCsayingWTF?! |
Aside from that, you did make a good point with
| QUOTE |
| Though there are some smart ones that realize that if they want rights, they can work for them. |
Sam's gay
#5
Ninten
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 05-October 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 12:21 AM
Well, if that does happen (Hopefully not), I thought of one brilliant argument they could use in support of it:
"It will decrease terrorism."
These four words are used univerally among politicians. Just say the four magic words (Remember to practice those inflections), and people will bow before your feet (Ha ha, bowing is funny).
"It will decrease terrorism."
These four words are used univerally among politicians. Just say the four magic words (Remember to practice those inflections), and people will bow before your feet (Ha ha, bowing is funny).
#6
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 01:34 AM
Would you mind supporting your position?
Sam's gay
#7
Ferret Overlord
- Citizen Snips
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 4,558
- Joined: 21-February 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 11:08 AM
| QUOTE (Killerconvic @ May 20 2004, 06:29 PM) | ||||
Garunda, the debate forum is not supposed to have insanity in it. Did you honestly need
Aside from that, you did make a good point with
|
Obviously I emphasized things a little too much.
Sorry.
HI! I'M BACK SPORADICALLY! Nobody probably remembers me :(
#8
Ninten
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 05-October 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 01:48 PM
| QUOTE |
| Would you mind supporting your position? |
The increased border patrols, it will decrease terrorism...
The UK traffic observing cameras, it will decrease terrorism...
The dropping of bombs, it will decrease terrorism...
Maybe some of these might decrease terrorism, but the fact is that they still support it with the same phrase.
#9
Ferret Overlord
- Citizen Snips
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 4,558
- Joined: 21-February 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 03:11 PM
Not really.
think as a terrorist would.
A draft would show that we're affraid of them and putting in more troops.
Security cameras will just encourage them to attack in front so we know it's them.
Terrorists do exactly the opposite of what we expect them to do.
think as a terrorist would.
A draft would show that we're affraid of them and putting in more troops.
Security cameras will just encourage them to attack in front so we know it's them.
Terrorists do exactly the opposite of what we expect them to do.
HI! I'M BACK SPORADICALLY! Nobody probably remembers me :(
#10
Ninten
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 05-October 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 03:24 PM
| QUOTE |
| Not really. think as a terrorist would. A draft would show that we're affraid of them and putting in more troops. Security cameras will just encourage them to attack in front so we know it's them. Terrorists do exactly the opposite of what we expect them to do. |
You misunderstood what I was saying.
I wasn't trying to say anything about the prevention of terrorism, rather I was trying to say that some people gain support by saying that something will decrease terrorism.
This post has been edited by Ninten: 22 May 2004 - 03:29 PM
#11
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 03:56 PM
I personally agree with Garunda. If we drop bombs, terrorists will take it a step higher. They know the US won't "go too far".
Sam's gay
#12
Neraphym
- Do not want!
-
- Group: Super Moderator
- Posts: 10,332
- Joined: 29-October 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 04:36 PM
The draft goes against everything the US stands for. First off, those most affected by it (us) have absolutely no say on its creation. Secondly, forcing people to fight in ANOTHER war nobody really wanted to be in is 10 times worse than it was the first time around in Vietnam. If Bush were remotely concerned with the wellbeing of our troops, Baghdad wouldn't be a city anymore, but rather a smoldering chunk of desert glass.
We will never win a terrorism war. Its impossible the way we are doing it. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat we could have against terrorists. I say let there be no middle east should another 9-11 happen.
We will never win a terrorism war. Its impossible the way we are doing it. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat we could have against terrorists. I say let there be no middle east should another 9-11 happen.
Neraphym Archaeon
GWAMM
GWAMM
#13
Ninten
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 05-October 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 06:11 PM
| QUOTE |
| If Bush were remotely concerned with the wellbeing of our troops, Baghdad wouldn't be a city anymore, but rather a smoldering chunk of desert glass. |
It wouldn't be remotely right to kill the innocent civilians inside of that city, would it?
This post has been edited by Ninten: 22 May 2004 - 06:13 PM
#14
Star Jedi
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Community Admin
- Posts: 5,684
- Joined: 01-May 03
Posted 22 May 2004 - 09:48 PM
| QUOTE |
| It wouldn't be remotely right to kill the innocent civilians inside of that city, would it? |
True, the citizens have no say whatsoever over there. Some of them like the war, but some of them hate it, and killing them definitely would not be justified.
#15
Jarik C-Bol
- Blue. The one true color.
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 1,558
- Joined: 20-April 03
Posted 23 May 2004 - 12:22 AM
Returning to the subject of draft, I beleive that they should very seriously consider all other posible actions before activating the draft, primaraly because this will turn nto another Vietnam. wee will see large protests as well as people evading the draft via Mexico and other countrys. I personaly do not want anything to do with the war in Iraq, because It is a war that is imposible to win. (i'm going to go out on a limb now) Primaraly because, for the duration of human history, there has been war between the tribes and nations of the middle east. Acording to biblical teachings, they will never see peace. Thus, our atempts to establish a peacful nation there are doomed to failure. I don't know how we will fail, but eventualy, we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq. weither it is due to a military loss, or some political actions, we are in a war that we are destined to not finish. Thus, I see no reason to send still more of out young men and women into a battle that will eventualy end badly for the U.S. unfortunatly, the American govornment typicaly does not hold to my personal moral standards, and we will most likly activate the draft, sening still more people to a war that needs to end. As of my last perusal of the news, the factions in Iraq would prefer that the US withdraw, leaving them to war among themselfs, which will evenualy lead to the establishment of at least some form of govornment. this is better than the military state that Iraq is in today. they are a free people now, let them decide there next fate.
