-Draft- READ important

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
This comes up on the board about once a month. No one is stupid enough to reinstitute the draft. In fact, the liberal Democrats are the ones who have introduced draft legislation - the same ones who opposed the war.

I agree with DK's statement also - a draft would lower morale and lower the readiness level of the armed forces.

wasn't this bill co sponsored with a republican?

 

[Annie]

There are pros and cons of both voluntary and conscription, especially if the latter is applied fairly. Volunteers are more motivated, no doubt about that. Though I know of at least 15 kids in college that expect to finish and enlist, seems some of them might find the later coming first.

Funny thing, those that were in 3rd grade and older on 9/11 seem to understand the WOT much better than their parents. My own kids get it, both boys seriously considered enlisting, but decided to get their degrees first. I think if that is interrupted, they will deal with it. Last Friday I went to my son's high school graduation, both the Salutorian and Class President mentioned the uncertain future their class faces in the times post 9/11.

This year we had 1 going to West Point, 1 to Annapolis. These are kids from rather wealthy families. 2 are off to VMI and 6 to the Citadel. My own son was offered partial scholarship to Citadel, but not enough to make it possible. He is going to state school, majoring in law enforcement. This isn't what their families had in mind 5 years ago. But all are very proud, if scared for them.

Conscription also has some things to say for it. All of us will be vested in success. When people you know are fighting, it's pretty hard to call for their annihilation, as some on the left are currently doing.

Unlike Vietnam, I know people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fathers, sisters, and brothers of my students. My youngest son has a friend that is a senior at West Point. My cousin's daughter just married an officer deployed to Iraq. Between my 3 kids, they have 6 friends over in one place or the other. With a draft, those numbers will rapidly increase.

 

[op3g]

: /

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
This select group would oppose financial incentives for our military because it would undermine national security ? I don't understand DK

no, to come up with the money for these financial incentives you would have to do one of three things. Raise taxes (never going to happen), make cuts in social programs (which is what the GOP is trying to do in a huge way), or pare the military budget to stop the wasteful spending. If you opt for number 3 then you will hear the screams and accusations of undermining national security but you can't explain to them that tens of millions are wasted every year for stupid crap because that money would not be available to them the next budget.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by op3g
>.< wish i knew more about politics then i could actually maybe say something smart : P

Keep coming here, you are bound to pick up on some politics. Sounds like you want to learn.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
no, to come up with the money for these financial incentives you would have to do one of three things. Raise taxes (never going to happen), make cuts in social programs (which is what the GOP is trying to do in a huge way), or pare the military budget to stop the wasteful spending. If you opt for number 3 then you will hear the screams and accusations of undermining national security but you can't explain to them that tens of millions are wasted every year for stupid crap because that money would not be available to them the next budget.

ok gotcha--gonna have to cut somewhere or raise taxes--cutting the waste is such a bitch cause people will either refuse to accept that its waste or the "waste" is going in their own pockets--tought one!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
ok gotcha--gonna have to cut somewhere or raise taxes--cutting the waste is such a bitch cause people will either refuse to accept that its waste or the "waste" is going in their own pockets--tought one!

hence the accusations of undermining national security.

 

[dmp]

gats - some of y'all are big fat pussies..


My dad is on a Draft Board, btw..

Claim: The U.S. military will be reinstating the draft by Spring 2005.

Status: Probably not.

Example: [congress.org, 2004]
Origins: As U.S. military involvement in Vietnam came to an end in 1973, so did the draft. For the first time since the days of World War II, the U.S. military shifted to an all-volunteer force; all vacancies in the armed forces were filled through recruitment and re-enlistments rather than conscription. (The requirement for young men to register with the Selective Service was not abolished until 1975, however, and it was reinstated in 1980.)

As recent U.S. military involvement in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has required the largest commitment of American troops since the mid-1970s, and the military has had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up additional reserves, and extend tours of duty by a year in order to maintain adequate staffing levels, the specter of a resurrected draft has been looming on the mind of many a young person. Although the possibility of a reinstatement of conscription cannot be ruled out, a renewal of the draft anytime soon appears unlikely, and one implemented as early as June 2005 seems rather improbable.

As reflected in the message quoted above, the draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. beween the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service's advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both the Congressional bills were introduced back in January 2003 and have languished in committee ever since with seemingly little support, and the Selective Service maintains that the timing of ads to fill draft board positions was coincidental, part of a process of filling expired board positions that has been underway for several years:

About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms as unpaid board members. [Selective Service spokesman Pat] Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999.

That means hiring replacements has been going on for several years. Confusion arose in recent weeks when someone posted the hiring notice on www.defendamerica.mil, a Pentagon Web site about the war on terror, even though the Selective Service System is not a part of the Defense Department.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation — Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member," it said.

Several newspapers around the world wrote stories, leading to questions about whether the government was planning to restart drafting enlistees. The stories appeared as news media wrote increasingly about the Pentagon's extensive mobilization of National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq.

"It was a case of bad timing because of the war in Iraq and news about deployments," Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said of the Web posting. "It created a tempest in a teacup."
Opinions — from both those inside and outside the military — differ as to what the manpower requirements of the U.S. armed forces will be in the near future, and whether the services will be able to continue to meet those requirements under the current all-volunteer system. And certainly not everyone agrees that general conscription is the best solution to potential staffing shortfalls, for a variety of reasons:

While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost.

"The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

A fundamental problem with a draft today, experts say, is that the historic two-year period of conscription isn't enough time to get a return on the investment in training that modern soldiers require. "There's just too much equipment [draftees] could break," Pike said.

A related problem: the cost of feeding, clothing, training and paying a large influx of unskilled personnel would gobble up funds the military needs for other purposes.

"We're a personnel-based institution," Wong said. "If we have a lot more people walking in the door, it would suck up all of our resources."
Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005:

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

"It will take 193 days from the time that we get started until the first person is presented to the Department of Defense," said Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service. It would then take a year and a half to two years to train the draftees and form them into new combat units, Krepinovich said.
Even if the draft started up again, it might be of a much more limited nature than in previous years, with only those who could fill specialized positions in certain fields (e.g., health care, linguistics, computer technology) being conscripted.

There is as yet no definitive answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will reinstitute a draft. Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly — another event of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks could prompt some rapid shifts in government policy and public opinion.

Last updated: 25 May 2004

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
wasn't this bill co sponsored with a republican?

My understanding was the Rangel introduced it and a republican signed on as a co-sponsor after it was introduced.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Democrats WANT the draft reinstated so they can use it as evidence that america is a fascist empire.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Democrats WANT the draft reinstated so they can use it as evidence that america is a fascist empire.

Republicans want it to feed the number of troops available for war.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Republicans want it to feed the number of troops available for war.

One's an honest and intended purpose, one is a deceptive political maneuver.

What's Petrouka think? Oh what's that you say? It's irrelevant? I agree.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
One's an honest and intended purpose, one is a deceptive political maneuver.

What's Petrouka think? Oh what's that you say? It's irrelevant? I agree.

I dunno what Petrouka thinks. I haven't looked.

Frankly, I don't care.

I see it as unConstitutional to have a draft in the first place.

Since I cannot recall FOR SURE wether it is Constitutional or not, I have to go back and look.

Either way, the purpose at this point in time is evil.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why do you want to split the conservative vote and let kerry win?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How is it evil in your view? Do you think our guys will eventually be part of the one world army?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
How is it evil in your view? Do you think our guys will eventually be part of the one world army?

I just think that if there is a draft, and republicans want to keep us in war against terrorism, you would have overnight socialism and indentured servitude.

Take yer pick. Both parties are trying for the one last step.

All Bush has to do is let an attack or SUSPECTED attack occur on US soil and claim Martial Law while suspending the Constitution.

There is no mandate for cancelling Martial Law.

The same type of thing can be done with a draft mandating indentured servitude since any member of the military automatically gives up citizenship and becomes government property.

You may not agree with my view, but someone has to watch out for these things.

Check your news about Boston and it's transit authority today.

 

[Xenimus]

Yep, there will be many supreme court justices appointed next term.

Ive discovered that national state of emergency is actually martial law now. Seems easy to do, florida was under martial law shortly after 9/11 and nobody knew.

General Tommy Franks fears constitution will not survive major terrorist attack, says will be scrapped for military form of government, seems like he wants it to happen.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont see this happening at all. Not with Rumsfeld as SoD. he is trying to make a small more manuverable and efficient military. Why on earth would he want the draft. And if he doesnt want it, why on earth would start it? Unless of course China invades us. Baring that or possibly a war in N Korea. I dont see it happening.

And yes this is a mostly Democrat sponsored Bill. The only republican ive seen in favor of it is Senator Hagel. He isnt the most conservative republican to begin with. This is one of the reasons i was so frickin ticked at Senator Biden at my cousins graduation last week when he was trying to scare people with the draft and blame it on Bush when he is the one who is cosponsoring the bill. That and it was totally inappropriate for a graduation to begin with.

As for what would happen if there was a draft. I wouldnt wait for the draft. If my country needed me that badly id walk down and enlist. Or atleast try to since i dont know that they would let me with my health problems. After all, my grandparents and their parents befor ethem etc fought to free us. least i can do is fight to keep us free. Im just going to remember that we dont win wars by dying for our country. we win them by making the other guy die for his.

 

[Shazbot]

I would agree that the draft would not be reinstated quite so soon. It makes more sense to me that the administration wants to ready itself IN CASE the need arises. In either case, I don't consider myself an opponent.

First off, I see it as a core part of patriotism...if you oppose the draft (aka, fighting for your country), would you also oppose taking up arms to defend against a mainland invasion of the United States? I don't see the line that many draw between the two. If the nation's security is at stake, each citizen has the duty (not just the right) to defend it.

Secondly, one needs to consider that everyone in the military is not in the 101st Airborne Division. Not everyone in uniform is conducting offensive operations against Al Sadr's militia. The military is about as complex as a very large corporation. You have your specialists, and you have your grunts. One must consider the thousands of men and women in uniform that are serving in all aspects of the military, including those aboard ships in the navy. What about the soldiers that maintain strategic military bases in locations around the world? What about medics? What about MP's? And don't tell me the military doesn't have as many inventory stockers (or their equivalent) as Wal-Mart.

Third, as the military draws upon all the reserves, it leaves us in an interesting position...not much to fall back on. A draft could very simply be used not to bring more men and women to the front, but to fill the gaps left by reservists, so that the nation has a force to fall back on in the case of a large scale emergency in another part of the world.

Don't think that by getting drafted you suddenly find youself on the front lines. The volume of volunteers is far too great right now (and probably moreso in the future). Instead, take it as an opportunity to learn and serve. However, please remember my first sentence, which expresses my doubt that the draft will even be instituted any time soon (which in and of itself kind of makes my argument pointless : ).

-Douglas

 

[proud_savagette]

I see it as unConstitutional to have a draft in the first place.

I'm not sure if you discovered the answer to whether or not the draft is constitutional, so I'll make sure. The Constitution does not directly mention the word "draft" or even "conscription," but its authorization for the Congress to "raise and support Armies" is a clear indication of the same concept--to use the resources of our nation to create or man an army.
The draft in the U.S. is administered by the Selective Service System. The SSS is in operation and actively campaigns to get young men to register so that should a draft ever be needed, it has ready lists of who is eligible. According to the SSS, registration for the draft is required of all men ages 18 through 25. I'm not sure about girls. Failure to register can result in a fine of up to $250, 000 and disqualification from many federal programs, such as student aid. This system has been in place since 1980.
So, conscription is clearly anticipated by the Constitution. The Constitution did impose one small but key restriction on a conscripted army--any allocation of funds to support the army can only have a life of two years. Any allocation thereafter must be reauthorized by congress. Since the House of Representatives is elected every two years, this is a safeguard against runaway armies. If people are not satisfied with the way a draft is being run, they can elect a House that will not authorize further funding.

And besides, I kinda wish women could serve on the front lines. I understand why they can't because of hygiene and all, but still. What better way to die is there than dying in service for the freedom of fellow Americans? Of course, I could only rest in peace if it was clear that the liberals weren't going to destroy the nation...