Full Version: The Draft. Again.
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.
-- Congress.org
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.
-- Congress.org
Note: The 2nd link doesn't work. The bills also make it harder for students to dodge the draft.
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft?
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause?
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time?
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East?
Atlhough you are substantially correct about these bills, the source website presents an alarmist viewpoint.
You can go to the Senate website, where you can search by bill number. There you can find S89, Universal National Service Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Hollings. The last link is to the Thomas Register, which also gives the status of the legislation.
You can also link to HR163 as a related bill, introduced by Rangel...
Since the last action on either was in February 2003, I think its safe to say that these bills are dying on the vine. On the other hand, they could be resurrected. But there is no indication at this time.
Always check and validate your source of information.
You can go to the Senate website, where you can search by bill number. There you can find S89, Universal National Service Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Hollings. The last link is to the Thomas Register, which also gives the status of the legislation.
QUOTE
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
You can also link to HR163 as a related bill, introduced by Rangel...
QUOTE
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Since the last action on either was in February 2003, I think its safe to say that these bills are dying on the vine. On the other hand, they could be resurrected. But there is no indication at this time.
Always check and validate your source of information.
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft? Not in my opinion. Not unless there is a very pressing and urgent national emergency.
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause? First, a reality check. This bill has not been passed, and I doubt that it will be. I don't believe the timing of this legislation (election year), proposed by a Democratic Senator, companion to another bill introduced by two other Democratic representatives, is an accident.
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time? No...but again, this is just a bill, proposed by a Democrat, during an election year with a Republican incumbent president.
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East? No.
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause? First, a reality check. This bill has not been passed, and I doubt that it will be. I don't believe the timing of this legislation (election year), proposed by a Democratic Senator, companion to another bill introduced by two other Democratic representatives, is an accident.
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time? No...but again, this is just a bill, proposed by a Democrat, during an election year with a Republican incumbent president.
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East? No.
Thanks for the links, Mustang. Mrs. Pigpen;
Rangel called for the draft in 2002 and introduced the bill early in 2003. I'm sure there are political reasons for introducing the bills, but I suspect it has more to do with class warfare than election year politics. I assume Rangel and Hollings introduced the bills in reaction to the president's request to a practice lottery drawing in 2003. If the draft is reinstated a Republican version will reach the voting stage in a Republican Congress.
QUOTE
First, a reality check. This bill has not been passed, and I doubt that it will be. I don't believe the timing of this legislation (election year), proposed by a Democratic Senator, companion to another bill introduced by two other Democratic representatives, is an accident.
Rangel called for the draft in 2002 and introduced the bill early in 2003. I'm sure there are political reasons for introducing the bills, but I suspect it has more to do with class warfare than election year politics. I assume Rangel and Hollings introduced the bills in reaction to the president's request to a practice lottery drawing in 2003. If the draft is reinstated a Republican version will reach the voting stage in a Republican Congress.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 26 2004, 10:14 AM)
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft?
Are you not willing to serve your country agianst terrorism? Wouldnt a permanent state of war on terrorism stop the people of these groups from cuasing other destruction, not only in america but anywhere else in the world. I beilieve it does and people that are needed that do not go should no longer be a US citizen.
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause?
Im confused?
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time?
I would have to disagree with drafting women. One because we need wemon in america or where are you we going to get soldiers from. Also not to be SEXIST i dont think women should be in the army, it cuases a kind of sexual relation between men and women that should not be occuring in an army for example... one of the females in are army right now is pregnant...
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East?
To tell you the truth it depends on what these bases are used for. If they are used for stoping terrorism, yes, but if they are for stoping the middle eastern people to do as they please, no, the bases shouldnt be there.
QUOTE
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft?
Are you not willing to serve your country agianst terrorism? Wouldnt a permanent state of war on terrorism stop the people of these groups from cuasing other destruction, not only in america but anywhere else in the world. I beilieve it does and people that are needed that do not go should no longer be a US citizen.
Are you not willing to serve your country agianst terrorism? Wouldnt a permanent state of war on terrorism stop the people of these groups from cuasing other destruction, not only in america but anywhere else in the world. I beilieve it does and people that are needed that do not go should no longer be a US citizen.
This is known as a Straw Man fallacy. Instead of addressing the question, you're misrepresenting it and attacking that misrepresentation. Also, don't you think it conceivable that people may have such good reasons to disagree with the draft that they would be detrimental to have conscripted into the military? Why must those people necessarily forgoe their citizenship? And even if you believe they should, it is considered "cruel and unusual" punishment as per the Eighth Amendment mentioned specifically in the second paragraph of Annotations p. 5.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 26 2004, 07:14 AM)
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.
-- Congress.org
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.
-- Congress.org
Note: The 2nd link doesn't work. The bills also make it harder for students to dodge the draft.
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft?
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause?
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time?
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East?
So far, all I've seen is a political ballon floated by a Democrat Senator and a Democrat Congressman in order to stir up an impending Draft bugaboo in order to scare the electorate for political gain.
Now it's spun as an administration creature. 
I'd wager heavily that it won't come to pass. By the way, the Draft is slavery!
Does a "permanent state of war on 'terrorism'" justify reinstating the draft?
A "war" on terrorism requires special operations forces. Draftees would be next to useless in such an action. It is akin to hunting bandits (which would be their status under international law). Whether we need to have a draft to fix the Great Big Mess O'Potamia is a different question altogether. We are hemorrhaging mid-level leaders. A draft will provide the cannon fodder but not the mid-level NCOs and Mid-Grade officers. A larger military may ease the OPTEMPO to the point where we can grow the midlevels again. The crisis not only applies to the Active but also the Reserve force.
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause?
No, it is a recognition that our Armed Forces are overstretched and they we cannot get enough volunteers and cannot retain enough soldiers. The GWOT portion is a red herring because the OPTEMPO has nothing to do with GWOT, but rather our actions in IRAQ. Afghanistan is not a real drain on the force.
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time?
GWOT does not, but everything else does. Sorry, breasts and a vagina do not give 52% of the population a free pass on defending this country. We need to move beyond the antiquated view that women are too fragile or too valuable to serve. That may have worked in the middle ages, but the modern US armed forces cannot function without women.
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East?
No. They really aren't needed. A favorite rule of mine is that "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Why do we want to continue to poke the hornet's nest. We need to do what needs to be done and then leave to a place that people actually want us around. We can project power from almost anywhere to almost anywhere in the world Why would we want to expose the force to unnecessary risks.
How incredibly naive. A resident of a Nation can demand protection from that state and the state cannot compel service from its citizens to supply that protection? Absent national defense gnomes that show up and guard the country while we sleep, how does a country with insufficent volunteers raise an Army to defend it's residents? All humor aside, a draft is so far from slavery that it insults people who are slaves. It is no more slavery than paying taxes, just that death may be a consequence of the draft and death is a relief from taxes.
J
A "war" on terrorism requires special operations forces. Draftees would be next to useless in such an action. It is akin to hunting bandits (which would be their status under international law). Whether we need to have a draft to fix the Great Big Mess O'Potamia is a different question altogether. We are hemorrhaging mid-level leaders. A draft will provide the cannon fodder but not the mid-level NCOs and Mid-Grade officers. A larger military may ease the OPTEMPO to the point where we can grow the midlevels again. The crisis not only applies to the Active but also the Reserve force.
Is reinstating the draft an indication that we are focused on "winning" the GWOT in conventional terms? How does this hinder or benefit our cause?
No, it is a recognition that our Armed Forces are overstretched and they we cannot get enough volunteers and cannot retain enough soldiers. The GWOT portion is a red herring because the OPTEMPO has nothing to do with GWOT, but rather our actions in IRAQ. Afghanistan is not a real drain on the force.
Does the GWOT justify drafting women for the first time?
GWOT does not, but everything else does. Sorry, breasts and a vagina do not give 52% of the population a free pass on defending this country. We need to move beyond the antiquated view that women are too fragile or too valuable to serve. That may have worked in the middle ages, but the modern US armed forces cannot function without women.
Should we set up additional, permanent bases in the Middle East?
No. They really aren't needed. A favorite rule of mine is that "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Why do we want to continue to poke the hornet's nest. We need to do what needs to be done and then leave to a place that people actually want us around. We can project power from almost anywhere to almost anywhere in the world Why would we want to expose the force to unnecessary risks.
QUOTE
By the way, the Draft is slavery!
How incredibly naive. A resident of a Nation can demand protection from that state and the state cannot compel service from its citizens to supply that protection? Absent national defense gnomes that show up and guard the country while we sleep, how does a country with insufficent volunteers raise an Army to defend it's residents? All humor aside, a draft is so far from slavery that it insults people who are slaves. It is no more slavery than paying taxes, just that death may be a consequence of the draft and death is a relief from taxes.
J
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.