This bill was killed in the house yesterday. So, it is officially dead, not just resting in limbo.

Per the disproportionate numbers of minorities in the military, that would seem to make a case in FAVOR of the draft, so I'm not certain what is being argued here. The bottom line is, if there aren't enough volunteers to protect us, the government must conscript them. Just be glad for the moment that so many indoctrinated and conditioned indigent minorities are willing to take up arms for you.

I pulled the racist card???????
Hero, does it hurt? Does it hurt to twist the logic in your head to make yourself believe that by not looking at skin color, but rather, the character, commitment and sacrifice of somebody is pulling the race card????
Just when I think I've seen everything, another tidbit of upside down logic appears to entertain me.

Your assertion that Latinos are over represented in the military is somewhat exaggerated, as noted Here and Here.

Idealist, utopian dreams of either no military, or a military that gets to vote on when and where to deploy and whom the enemy is.....is pure fiction. We live in the real world. And that real world contains people who would do us harm. And to counter that harm we must have a force willing, trained and able to meet it. One of the compelling reasons to not have a draft is so that Quakers, pacifists and conscientious objectors do not have to take up arms.
But it's strangely hypocritical to be hypercritical of what the military does, and the character of those in it willing to defend those outside of it.

Speaking of the House Draft Bill, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) (who voted against his own bill) stated:
"It is so darn hypocritical for the Congress to come forward and put a controversial bill on the suspension calendar, it's a shame that ... this legislative body is being used as a political tool on the eve of elections."

Ummm........So introducing a bogus bill isn't cynical, but putting it up for a vote is? Somebody, find me a village idiot who can't spot the hypocrisy here.

Poor was only in the Vietnam War, only because the pool that was pulled from where people between 18-24 who had no career, and yet to even start college.

In the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World War II draft, there was the same amount of wealthy to poor as their were in the United States at the time. Though the wealthy in the Civil War stood behind the lines, they still were on the field.

It is bad to use Vietnam as the only war with a draft. It was the only war with bad draft. Learn from the mistakes, move on. There are other wars with other drafts that called into service every man.

Besides there will be no draft. So this debate is beyond absurd.

One small error in this statement, up through the civil war, localities were required to raise X number of draftees to support the war effort. Rich men could hire substitutes to take their place. And in the case of the Revolutionary War, they were often slaves who were promised freedom upon completion, but were most often denied, and returned to their masters.

Present day politicking from Democrats aside, I believe Rangel is speaking about the negligible margin of privileged kids that served in Vietnam and serve today. He wrote the bill as protest to this, an attempt to streamline or get rid of deferments, and include women.



Voting against his own bill is still suspect.

Dont tread, I think you misjudged my logic, hence the upside-downedness. Someone points out inequalities in the distribution of ethnicity in the armed forces, you then warmly characterize the armed forces as a group that transcends race. I hope your right, and see no problem with it of course. It felt like you were accusing those who choose to point out ethnicity imbalances among the armed forces as racially over-sensitive or even racist. I replied trying to assert that the imbalances are still important to consider.

Given the immense gap in the distribution of wealth I find it impossible to see the armed forces as anything other than a ploy to lure the middle and lower class into defending the upper class' wealth. My perspective is shared by many, many people, however much you or others may disagree.

As for good draft bad draft... I don't beleive in good or bad, lets say productive or unproductive. The Vietnam war was altogether unproductive, the draft was thus unproductive as well. In previous wars the circumstances were different, more productive in terms of military success. The drafts implemented during those wars were generally beneficial to the efforts alltogether, however I still question how beneficial it was for the draftees. It's too long ago for me to reallly pass judgement. The gap in the distribution of wealth has become so exaggerated in the last decade that America doesn't need slaves to conscript should a draft become necessary, the poor fill essentially the same socioeconomic role, especially those of non-white races. America's Army is not a bastion of equality. Whatever brotherhood is established within the armed forces is after-the-fact.

Since it has been asserted over and over again by Bush and friends that there will be no draft, I (not that anything they have done gives me reason to do so) will take their word for it and not worry. However that shouldn't discourage hypothetical debate on the subject. This hypothetical debate done here seems to be conclusive that a draft would be unproductive, and unnecessary. Hopefully Bush and friends have come to the same conclusion becuase if they pull a fast one Im moving to mexico.

Hero, I agree with much of what you say, and didn't intend to come down heavy-handed. Everyone gets a bit passionate about certain subjects.......this happens to be one of mine.
I do however, disagree vehemently with the assertion of 'distribution of wealth'. As I believe it is earned, not given. And thus am not quite as cynical as you may be towards the military 'luring in the poor to protect the wealthy' I actually think that the military has been essential in making college educations and technical careers possible for thousands and thousands of people who would not ordinarily be able to attend.
I don't see this a bad thing for America.

Nice try, but we know rich (read: disproportionately white) people get out of the draft, some way, some how. Look at Bush. And I didn't ask them to go to Iraq, I don't want them in Iraq, and it happens the person I most don't want in Iraq who is there has a Latino last name.

Glad to see the Republicans had the brains to get that bill out of the way. How nice for them. But that, as you well know, is no guarantee there won't be a draft in the next year or two. This government is going to get a faceful of something if it tries to conscript Americans to go kill Iraqis, and I hope its not willing victims.

In addition, all of the Democrats who supported and conceived this bill need to go. I don't want to see Republicans in their place, third party candidates, of course, but they need to go. If they weren't betraying us to warmongers, they were idiots for pulling this. Any American with sense looked at our troops going into Iraq while AFghanistan was still going and went, "Uh oh," draft. They pulled a stupid stunt, I hope they get burned at the polls for it.

The draft could certainly be a solution to the disproportionate number of minorities you seem to think are economical conscripts, as it could be adapted to reflect the population at large. I don't know of any minorities in the military who view themselves that way, though. Every one of them takes pride in their service, and I am proud of them. I am sorry to hear about your friend. It's awful to have a loved one involved in a dangerous situation. That has happened to me as well, many times, and my last name is Hernandez. But my husband's involvement in combat and service to this country doesn't have anything to do with his minority status.

Per the Democrats who sponsored this bill, I looked up the results of the vote. Of the sponsor and 14 cosponsors of the bill, only one, Stark, voted yea. So, I looked up Stark to see if he is retiring soon. I'm not certain of the answer to that, but he made a statement on the house floor yesterday. I must say, I admire this man for standing up for his convictions (though I disagree with this issue) and think this is worth quoting:

Okay, so let me get this straight:


You're for a draft in this country, and soon.

As for what you said about dems, I don't just want those who voted for it today gone, I want those who signed onto it gone. And the one in the Senate, that has no signatures, not one name, Democrat or Republican, better ever go on that thing, for any reason.

Or anything like it.

Okay, enough of the steam coming out of my ears, let's break this down:

1. No matter how airtight the draft looks, rich kids dodge. That's all there is to it.

2. Rich or poor, those who choose to serve, although I think they often choose too young, at least had a choice. In a draft, there is no choice. You go or you suffer for it. I'm against a draft. Period.

3. This war isn't about our freedom, or Iraq's freedom. It's about controlling resources in the Middle East, actually one resource: oil.
I say we switch to biodiesel now and heck with hydrogen.

4. There are many noble American soldiers, but there aren't many noble American wars. We're certainly not in any right now, with our oil buddy running Afghanistan, Negroponte (with the CIA) doing a repeat of Honduras with more sand and probably about the same number of atrocities, our buddies the coup leaders slaughtering Haitians who just want the President we kidnapped back, and our pal SBY, SOA grad and East Timor/Aceh province human rights violator running Indonesia.

5. We create our own enemies out of just the foreign policy we have now, and sending draftees into Iraq won't make us safer. Quite the opposite.

Look at it this way: There are an unknown number of WMDs out there.

There are an unknown but growing number of people who hate us for killing their loved ones.

Put these two together, and you don't have security.

Besides, I know I don't want anything to happen to the individual I mentioned (even though I think he's a bonehead for going) but I also know there are people who have friends and family that we are killing who feel the same way.

No, not in any way. But, I'm not the one making the claims that the military is made up mainly of minorities and poor, who are basically conditioned economic conscripts. If that is your concern, the draft could eliminate that. Those "rich white guys" you seem to be so concerned about skating out only make up about the top one percent of the population. If you truly want a perfectly proportional number of minorities to non-minorities represented in the military, the draft is about the only way to do that. I don't think that's a good idea. I think we have a good system now, even if that excludes the uppermost echelon of society, and more minorities are drawn to the profession.

A real across the board draft would eliminate disproportionate numbers of poor people serving. But like I said, that's a fairy tale. The rich get out of it. The poor often can't.

On to another subject:

I've heard on this board and elsewhere that an impediment to the draft is training. It just takes too long to train soldiers now.

Not true.

Check this out:


Estrella-Soto, who graduated from Mountain View High School last year, was an automated logistics specialist for the unit and was described as a man ready to carry out his duties and willing to go to war.

From: http://www.borderlandnews.com/war/stories/...15-101178.shtml




Graduated last year (well, longer now, the article is old), enlisted, got trained, then died in Iraq.

It didn't take long to send him to the front. It wouldn't take long to send draftees.

ralou, in most of your posts, you've left us hanging on two points.
You seem to state with near certainty that there will be a draft, though the house vote the other day would seem to dispell that.
And you are definitely sure that rich kids would get out of the draft. Yet you provide no evidence to back that up with. In today's age of instant answers and media saturation, why do you think rich kids would easily escape a draft?

As far as I know, you've left me hanging on the answer to my question about when you would or wouldn't kill on orders in time of war. But that's okay, it's happened before when I asked military people that question.


I don't think that killing one of two bills or even killing both bills will stop a draft. It was a dumb move on the Dems part to put forward those bills. I thought they were traitors, but even if it was just a stunt, it was a stupid stunt.

Pieces of paper calling for a draft can be generated again, quite easily. And the vote doesn't say anything one way or the other over who would or wouldn't support a draft, because everyone who voted no knew two things: 1. the bill wouldn't pass and 2. It would be political suicide. but our foreign policy choices could very easily lead to a draft. Especially if Iran or N. Korea get feisty. If they ever intend to, now would be a good time.

Why do I think rich kids will escape the draft?

Well, the super rich can just go get citizenship somewhere else, but that won't be common. What will be common is the kind of maneuvering that got Bush his position stateside. There will be a lot of paperwork jobs to fill stateside, won't there, with volunteer forces so heavily deployed?

The rich will get those postings. Especially the rich who have a college degree in some administrative chore.

Now, on to how I think a draft would go, both to prevent massive protests and to get the Bush daughters et. al. out of having to serve:

It will be called mandatory service.

It will call for a year or two from every American between ages 18 and ?.

It will have a carrot for poor kids who want to go to college: It will pay for college if the kid signs up to serve.

For those who refuse, the stick won't necessarily be prison or the need to flee. Those who refuse, however, will be unable to get grants, loans, or any other government assistance, ever again.

Therefore, those able to pay their own way will be fine, and those willing to give up higher education, housing loans subsidized by the government, and etc. will get along.

Because no one will be marched off to jail, the protests won't be as widespread or vigorous. If someone graduates from college on the premise he/she will serve, then welches, no one will feel that sorry for him/her because he/she agreed to go.

That's how I see a draft going.

The other alternative is the one I've heard murmured about: Calling people up who have selective skills, a little at a time, to fill positions. That too would dampen down a lot of the protests, but I'm not sure it would dampen them down enough.

Tell me, do you really think we have a large enough volunteer military to handle a third nation? Say Iran or (heaven forbid) N. Korea, if we are attacked again?

If not, what solution other than a draft is there?

I've heard someone say contractors could be brought in, but that's horribly expensive, and we're already in massive debt. And would there be enough people willing to risk their lives in war, even for 100K a year?

OK, for your first point. Yes, absolutely I would kill on orders in time of war. I have done that. But I can do that with a clear conscious for a number of reasons.
In my line of work, I will be facing an enemy that is trying to kill me. I will not be facing poor defenseless pacifists. My own experience and American Military history has taught me that.
One of the values we espouse in the Army is trust. I trust my immediate superiors to act cautiously and prudently in a time of war. Maybe contrary to popular belief, we try and minimize casualties, on both sides.
As a brand new private, I could never say with certainty that I knew the designs and implicitly trusted my superiors, I grew up watching Hollywood war movies, after all. But now that I have been a leader of soldiers for many years, I know better.
And going back to my earlier point, you simply cannot remain poised to defend your country and be able to lobby, strike or take a vote on whether to deploy into a combat theater. We remain subordinate to the elected leaders of the nation, as it should be. If that structure weren't in place, we would be no better than a third world dictatorship.

Concerning the draft specifically, you cite how easy it would be to generate bills and pieces of paper, but there is no evidence that this is forthcoming. I agree, it's easy, but who would propose such a bill (a for real bill), and why? Who would risk being run out of office at the next election, or for their party to lose power, as would almost surely happen?

If there was a draft, the lessons of Vietnam with deferments and such, would surely be incorporated into the bill.

Not really, for two reasons.
One is that we have seen over the last three years, that National Guard units are just as likely to be called to active duty as Reserve units. Especially since, in the mid 80's, the military started shifting the burden of support roles to the reserve component.
Secondly, and in part due to the above, there are precious few jobs, at least in the Army that will guarantee anyone from being deployed. When a unit goes overseas, it's clerks, supply, fuel handlers, finance, personnel, etc...people, all deploy with it.
Aside from some training and staff billets, (that would normally go to experienced trainers, and those medically non-deployable), and the like, not very many soldiers are safe from going into harms way. And this is without a draft.

Well, since no one else posted these gems from Charlie Rangel, thought that I would pass along. My emphasis added.

NY Post



All we hear on the internet is that a draft is coming back. Most of those internet mails refer to Rangel's own Bill!!!

Rangel didn't vote for his own bill, and called the fact that his bill was brought up for a vote 'a prostitution of the legislative process.' This is indeed the brilliance of Charlie Rangel in a nutshell. He should author a book on 'prostituting the legislative process' and how to get re-elected in Harlem. Amazing.

I think I'll add to that my own observation
The effects of these tactics have been startling.

Here on my own campus, rumors about the draft are accepted as fact wherever you go and many, many people are genuinely afraid. I try to set the record straight where I can but I guarantee you some (likely a majority) will believe this right up to the elections.

This type of thing preys on the most political vulnerable in our society, those involved (were there any justice) would be impeached immediately.

Absolutely Shameful.

In the scenario I described, your entry into the place where you were told to go, to kill whoever is in that place, you're saying you'd wait for them to open fire or wait and ascertain that they have weapons?

I don't think so. I think when the CO say shoot, you shoot, regardless of what your eyes may tell you about the hostility of those you are shooting.

But let me be fair, because I know that my question really wasn't in a way:

Will you violate laws of war and international human rights law, if ordered? Say, if you and the rest of your unit were ordered to recreate a My Lai massacre?

That answer has varied, and even the "probably" I got from one person I asked wasn't very certain. I know also that technically, soldiers have not only a right but a duty to refuse orders like that.

So what do you think you would you do?



Back to the rich and the draft:

I see it coming as I described, more or less, with the kind of soft enforcement that would prevent the rich from having to serve and would also dampen down protest.

Tell me, if you would, why this particular scenario isn't feasible?


As far as your own loyalty to the leaders and that being the way it has to be (I've heard that before, too, and I've heard many, many tell me it doesn't matter if the leaders are good or bad, because ultimately, the service is to the country):

This Commander in Chief is not worthy of you.

However, it's not your job to get a better one in office. It's our job. And I'm afraid my fellow citizens have let you and the rest of the armed services down for a long time, because most are apathetic, deliberately ignorant, without much real concern for either military personnel or civilians killed in wars we should not have been in.

In addition, as I stated before, the military (in particular the Guard) has been used to quell American protests and to infringe on American freedom (often with very lethal force, often in the interests of businesses that wanted worker strikes and protests ended).

Therefore, although it's understandable that military personnel say they fight for America and not a particular leader, it's also a problem when a particular leader or regime isn't acting in the best interests of Americans. Which this administration is certainly not doing.

Again, that is still the job of Americans, all Americans, and not just soldiers, to remedy. But it will also be the job of Americans, if called to a draft by an administration whose deceitfulness is so well proven, to resist that draft.

While I'd like to see soldiers resist this illegal war in Iraq, too, especially given the incredibly high number of civilian casualties, it's of course a different matter, because it's a volunteer force.

Based on your myriad of comments regarding how our military should follow international law, and that your profile says 'green party' I am making an inference that you support efforts to curb global warming like the Kyoto Protocol. The only vote on this initaitive resulted in it being rejected by the Senate 95-0. Some people, including one of those 95 senators, who is now running for president, argue that George Bush should lead our nation in support for the Kyoto Protocol. Many of those same people are saying that the military draft, just rejected 400-2 by the House, is coming back any day now. Do you see any inconsistencies there? What exactly would the proportion of a vote have to be before it's considered a legitimate expression of representative democracy? 435 + 100 for, zero against, with the VP chiming in even though it's not a tie?

As far as rich people getting out of the theoretical national service or draft by 'soft enforcement,' you've stated that this is your belief, which is your right. Maybe there would be strong incentive to avoid the military, but why the national service option? It has always been my impression that the Peace Corps was full of rich kids. Sure looks good on a resume when Buffy or Chip are interviewed for that investment banking job.

As for the military / National Guard (and its new poor & minority draftees) being used to quell labor and civil unrest, you may wish to post a source or two. This sounds more like a history lesson than current events. National Guard troops are occasionally used to cross picket lines and perform public service during a strike, like in nursing homes and firefighting. However, they really aren't beating down the righteous proletariats with truncheons lately.

I don't even have to hesitate to think about that answer........no. The problem arises when you try and interpret 'international human rights law'. Our 'Laws of Land Warfare' (FM 27-10) don't always square with things like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, but we follow a just and fair regulation, IMO. One of the many problems inherent in the ICC.
But in terms of My Lai, and Abu Graib....it's a no brainer.

We agree on the possibility of draft legislation, but we seem to diverge on the probability of it coming to fruition. Anything is possible, but for it to become a probability, you have to connect a series of dots, that for now, at least, remain unconnected.


I'm not following your 'soft enforcement' line. I think that there are to many checks and balances, from the media, interest groups, 3rd parties and those already serving that would be more than happy to blow the whistle on something like what happened with the Vietnam draft.


I served under Clinton.....and I'm not exactly voting for GW, so it's really immaterial to me who the CinC is, when it comes down to me occupying a foxhole. I don't live under a paranoia that we will be soon rolling into Syria and Iran, and even if we were, I would be there, not for any politician, but for the soldiers. There is a burning desire in leaders in our military, including myself, to guide, mentor, train and lead soldiers through whatever adversity comes our way. This concept may not resonate with many civilians, but I feel guilty and rather useless in my present job, while so many of my brothers are in harms way. My turn will come again soon, but it's hard to fight the undertow of emotions when young soldiers are under fire, and you're not. Maybe it's kind of a mother hen syndrome....but knowing what soldiers will do in a crisis, without regard for their own life actually reaffirms my belief in the goodness of man. OK, enough rambling........

I do admire your concern for the military to be led by competent politicians, and I agree. We may, however disagree on the necessity of certain conflicts, but that's OK too.

If a draft were to come, I would be on the front lines opposing it, I'm just not breaking out my protest attire yet.......

Wow, I think you're the first person I've gotten a definitive 'no' from on that question on violating international law (you also understood, as the poster before you didn't, that I was specifically talking about serious human rights violations), with no qualifiers or uncertainty. Although there are a couple I didn't ask because I knew they'd say no, and it's true that the most definitive yes I got was from a guy who would probably do it for fun if he could get away with it (one look in his eyes, and you could tell nobody human was home).

I certainly hope you're right that there will be no draft. I just don't know how long our current situation can continue without one, given the possibility that a country hostile to us will crank up the heat in an effort to alter the power balance. I hope we don't have to find out.

Okay, Carlito, now I have time to answer you! (I was in class during my last post, and it was about to be over).

Actually, I'm more a Nader person than a Green. I don't really consider myself strongly bound to any party or candidate, though. I just like people who talk straight (I'd vote for Don'tTreadonMe before I'd vote for Gore. I think Don'tTread talks straight, even when I don't agree with everything he says).

Anyway, as for the Kyoto Protocol, I'm not sure why our so-called leaders voted like they did. I disagree with their vote, including Kerry's. You've mistaken me for a Kerry fan, when in actuality, if I vote for him (a big if, but it wasn't even a possibility before I saw the first debate) it will be because I think he's better than Bush. Which isn't saying much. I don't know if you missed it, but I'm extremely unhappy with most of the Democratic Party. Kucinich was my candidate of choice, but I think his direct talk and desire for change scared the American people. After all, we are a very complacent nation, which is natural, given our relative safety and prosperity.

As for rich kids in the Peace Corps, I hope you're right, and that the Corps is full of them. They'll learn a lot more than rich kids spending summers working for some candidate or other. But then, if you aren't at least middle class, how can you afford to spend a year or more volunteering for anything? Did you know you have to settle your debts before you go (except student debts, you can get a deferment). I know that because I'm considering joining between college and law school, but as a non-traditional student with a lot of prior debt and very little in the way of help from my family (grateful for what I've gotten, though, I never would have been able to do this on my own) I don't know if I'll be able to join. Nevertheless, the Vietnam
War era was full of Chips (and Georges, and Bills, and Rush's) that didn't think a tour in Vietnam would look so nice on their resumes. I don't think it would be different should it come to a draft again. I know I wouldn't go, and there are plenty of others who wouldn't, and the rich will have less unpleasant consequences under the version I envision than the poor, so less rich people would grit their teeth and go.


You are perfectly right that my comments on the use of the National Guard to quell domestic unrest isn't recent. Kent State is the most recent I can think of, and that was a rarity even then. You have to go back to around the depression era to see it.

However, history tends to show what the future could bring. If a future administration were to behave so foolishly that large numbers of American would shake off their apathy and take to the streets, I have no doubt that the Guard would be called in again.

Isn't that nearly the entire Congressional Black Caucus?

Yes it is, and it was a dumb stunt on their part. They should be rewarded with a trip home, and third party candidates should fill their places. They've lost all credibility with me (not that any of the names I see in that list had much). If they were trying to prevent a draft by scaring people, they needn't have bothered-people were already scared, and this might now reduce fears that maybe shouldn't be reduced.

If they proposed the bill as an election stunt, they're even more foolish. Americans who actually looked at the thing either decided the bill was: A. A stupid stunt, or B. (this is what I thought) proof that, once again, the Democrats, far from being an opposition party, had betrayed Americans. (It wouldn't be the first time. Think back to Clinton and NAFTA and the WTO, and normalized trade relations with China, nevermind healthcare reform.)

My apologies, and no, I didn't know that one liners are against the rules, I was actually asking a question.

I just checked the bill sponsors against the listed membership of the CBC on the Internet, I guess I can now finish my thought.

Half of the sponsors are members of the CBC, all of them are Democrats.

There isn't a whole lot of tin foil required to see this as exactly what it was; a deliberate attempt at backdooring the War on Terror issue, by throwing up the evil thought of a national draft.

http://www.pressrepublican.com/Archive/200.../09282004ed.htm

I think I'm going to choose to be the enemy in this debate. We shouldn't have a draft, we should most definitely have a mandatory two years of service. Maybe get some hair on the chests of all those sissy boys out there.

My only hope is that maybe this farsee of a draft coming into play actually gets all those spoiled college brats off their butts and they go and vote. Could actually get some decent numbers for a change. but with a closed mind they obviously would carelessly throw their vote in Kerry's direction without looking at all the facts.

I think that the biggest fear is either of them going into office. the mud slingings getting nasty.

The debates they have horrify me. We have one guy who is saying what people want to hear, and the other is chest thumping.

I still haven't heard in any of the debates FROM THE PRESIDENT that he intends to put a draft in play.

And as I said before ... WHY?????? And than i found that.


http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_draft.php

Don't vote for Bush fine, vote for kerry... The political angle is always out there.

And yet another one you haven't seen in here.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/draft.htm

My theory is we need both parties to rehold their conventions.

Updates as the mud-slinging continues, both candidates have chosen the path of deception...

Kerry Says 'Potential' for Draft If Bush Wins
This is without a doubt the sleaziest tactic I've seen in a while, putting Rove to shame...

Shame is that it works...

United States Constitution: Amendment XII: Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



A draft is, barely, Constitutional. Two years of mandatory service is not.

Ok, how about an amendment where people don't send others off to fight in their stead???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132971,00.html

Please go join michael moore in canada.

How about debating on topic too eh?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

Besides as stated above, also the news media has been working on this angle as always. I think Jon Stewart Nailed it on the head today with his interview on the television "news show" Crossfire. I don't even like the Daily Show, but I can see exactly how it comes into play.

I absolutely agree with Kerry on this one- as a lame duck prez- GW can provide political cover when he goes for the draft- and if he is re-elected, no matter how marginal the election is- he will use this as a "mandate" to continue his horrible foriegn policy- and, there is no way on God's green earth he can continue his foriegn policies withoug a draft- there are just not enough men in the military today and even with basic management changes in training etc, eventually, there is going to be a shortage we can not adjust for.

Well, if there is a draft, Don'tTreadOnMe will be on the same side as me (something I find quite comforting). I'm right....er....behind you, sir. You're posts in this thread tell me that you're knowledgeable, honorable, and well armed!

I do think it would take more than Bush on his way out to bring a draft. I think it would take another attack or N. Korea or Iran taking advantage of the moment to make a move against us.

Unfortunately, neither of these possibilities seems far-fetched to me.

Huh?
Why? Moore is an big, fat, foolish fellow who happens to have a tremendous gift for self-promotion. The only reason I would join Moore at that monument is so that, hopefully, I could see some VietNam Vets blow it up, showering Moore with massive quantities of excrement in the process.

It is on topic. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, that the draft for military service is Constitutional. Mandatory national service is not, as well as being a violation of assorted UN treaties. Thus, a suggestion to implement mandatory national service is, barring a Constitutional amendment, a red herring, especially in the context of this election.

On topic enough for ya?