kids: get ready to be be drafted for corrupt politicians

[spillmind]

KIDS- GET READY TO DIE FOR GREED!!
THE DRAFT IS COMING BACK! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE, TODAY!

(from bushflash.com )

Indeed, it's true- the House and Senate will soon be voting on bills to re-institute the military draft, in the United States.

Before I proceed- a personal aside: One of the few comforts I have had in recent months has been the sobering fact that as much as Bush and his PNAC cronies would love to invade every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel, such is impossible- as things stand, right now, for two reasons...

First off, the US military, despite recieving over 50% of discretionary spending here in the USA, is stretched so thinly that the US cannot commit any further forces for such insane exercises in empire-building.

The second obstacle to the expansion of operations in the middle east is that, simply put, the USA cannot afford it. We've already pretty much bankrupted ourselves with our shenannigans in Iraq and Afghanistan. While our military-industrial complex is formidable, it simply cannot support the dreams of the Neocons and PNAC.

If, indeed, this bill passes in the house and senate (and, the nature of said bodies being what it is, I wouldn't doubt a passage of such), the first obstacle is overcome. Then, the second obstacle will be overcome, by default- by necessity, the bulk of the US commercial structure will HAVE to orient itself to work within the existing military-industrial complex, simply because it's the largest, and most profitable game in town, funded by our tax billions (well- the tax revenues squeezed from the middle and lower classes- we can't cheese off the rich folks who are getting alla them juicy government contracts.). The United States of America will turn into a military/corporatist state- sorta like North Korea with prettier pictures and better TV.

Any patriotic american- right or left- cannot let this happen.

The bill is ominously titled the "Universal National Service Act of 2003." This means that the vote will come within the next few weeks- prior to the new year. I have heard, through reliable news sources, that, while many pundits are poo-poohing the legislation, and the possibility of it's passage, the US government has ALREADY BEGUN HIRING PEOPLE TO STAFF THE DRAFT BOARDS.

Those in the higher levels of power seem to be pretty sure that the draft is coming back.

If that happens, our daughters as well as sons "between the ages of 18 and 26" will be "subject to induction." The "President" will "determine the number of persons" to be chosen for "the uniformed services" according to the military needs of the time. In light of the world's rising peacekeeping demands, those needs could grow fast.

Now, a certain, perverse corner of my mind wonders- maybe all of the snot-nosed 16-year-old kids who have sent me all of those e-mails, calling me "anti-american" for being opposed to the invasion of iraq SHOULD spend a few years in the service- maybe they will get a new appreciation of what they are so gung-ho for, behind the comfort of their computer keyboards.

But, in the final analysis, I truly don't desire such a thing- I don't want ANY MORE PEOPLE to die, just to pad the wallets of the corporatist monsters behind the Bush throne.

So- I URGE everyone- WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OR CONGRESS, AND DEMAND that they not allow this insidious bill to become law- too much is at stake.

For your reference, the Bills are:

In the House: H.R. 163

In the Senate: S.89

 

[SLClemens]

I don't think a Vietnam-style draft will ever happen. The political fall-out would be incredible. Also, face it, they want strong young men, but if they only draft such people today some of these strong young men who don't want to be drafted will launch equal-rights lawsuites. However, if they draft women as well, many on the religious right will object to having their daughters fight in a war.

Another problem is that it will scare the bejeezuz out of rich parents who want cheap gas for their SUVs and an economy based on ever-increasing consumption but don't want their families to suffer for it. Their kids could likely get medical excemptions from parents' friends and contacts in the medical profession, but just the thought of it would make a lot of people from our upper classes who are currently living in comfort squirm.

It would be much less costly in all respects simply to pay the lower ranks of the army a better wage and attract more people who can't get a better job.

What is more likely if they do try a draft is that they would try to draft people from certain specialized professions and occupations, or just make government sponsorship of certain educational programs contingent upon draft eligibility.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Spilly, really. This bill wasn't even introduced in hopes of trying to get passed. This was anti-war propaganda by the Democrats.

Link

The important quotes from that article:

"The decorated Korean War veteran said he introduced the bill "in hopes that those people who make the decisions to go to war, to attack Iraq, would be better influenced against it if they had kids that would be placed in harm's way, or if they felt closer to the shared sacrifice that we oftentimes talk about."

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters this month he sees no need for a draft. He said the military is managing to attract enough skilled recruits without one.

"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all," Rumsfeld said. "The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable."


There is a difference between a legitimate bill being placed into legislation and Anti-War Propaganda.

 

[5stringJeff]

Honestly, Spillmind, a little bit of research would have saved a little face on your part.

First, as was mentioned by lil, the bill was introduced by Charles Rangel, a vehement anti-war Congressman from NY, and introduced in the Senate by Fritz Hollings, the outgoing guy from South Carolina. It was read and died in committee in both chambers. There is no way it would pass, and no way Bush would sign it, anyway.

 

[spillmind]

i don't have a facade to maintain.

besides, i am of the faith that Bush would re-institute the draft should he get re-(s)elected next year. i also firmly believe that taxes are going up in a big way in 2005.

besides, if this bill was shouted down and dismissed, why are these statements so recent?

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=58020746

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=55274331

'Is there an attempt to pass this legislation and announce it, no earlier than after the winner of the 2004 Presidential Race is known?'

 

[lilcountriegal]

i am of the faith that Bush would re-institute the draft should he get re-(s)elected next year

I think crop circles are made by aliens, but that sure doesnt make it so, does it now. Bush would never reinstitute the draft spilly, your skating on icy waters.

besides, if this bill was shouted down and dismissed, why are these statements so recent?

You are taking letters from the general public posted on the Congress site voicing their objection to re-instating the draft. Please show me a letter where someone states "oh yes, the draft, YIPPIE, now I can send my 18 year old off to war". One of the two letters isnt even signed. Cant you find better sources spilly?

I'm sure with people like yourself posting this nonsensical crap on message boards trying to stir up resentment against the current administration may have something to do with it.

Its an election year spilly... no one in politics will be taking a shit without it being talked about for months.

You posting this nonsense and trying to add a bit of reality to it just proves exactly how low you will go.

 

[lilcountriegal]

I'll just link the article at the end so you can read it in its entirety... just thought you might want to do a bit better research before you post such an idiotic thread. However, I must say, it is fun to blast you right out of the water.

Quotes:

"In an unusual ploy to force more public debate on our looming attack on Iraq, a congressman plans this week to introduce legislation urging we reinstitute the military draft."


Rangel's call to resume the draft is an anti-war argument dressed in military garb-- an obvious bit of political gamesmanship.

For all of its cleverness, Rangel's ploy bespeaks of a profound weakness within the Democratic Party. The Bush administration's new foreign policy doctrine is stridently imperialistic. Why must Rangel resort to tongue-in-cheek legislation to force a debate on this new and dangerous doctrine?

Rather than spotlighting this insufferable global arrogance, Democrats grin and bear it. Instead of presenting arguments against the Bush administration's radical unilateralism, the poll-reading Democrats are too busy trying to "triangulate" their way into the hearts of patriotic, but ill-informed, constituents.


Draft Resumption a Crafty Anti-War Tactic

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
besides, i am of the faith that Bush would re-institute the draft should he get re-(s)elected next year. i also firmly believe that taxes are going up in a big way in 2005.

If Dean or Clark pulls a miracle and gets elected, you can be sure that taxes will be raised. Bush will not raise taxes.

besides, if this bill was shouted down and dismissed, why are these statements so recent?
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=58020746
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=55274331
'Is there an attempt to pass this legislation and announce it, no earlier than after the winner of the 2004 Presidential Race is known?'

Probably because the people who wrote the letters just stumbled across the story and thought the legislation was still active.

Look, the Senate passed it to committee, where there has been zero action taken. Ditto with the House - in fact, they sent it to a subcommittee to die. No one wants to pass a draft, especially not in an election year. It will never get a vote on the floor of either chamber.

 

[jimnyc]

KIDS- GET READY TO DIE FOR GREED!!

Spilly, Spilly, Spilly, you've outdone yourself this time!

You must have read somewhere "greed, draft, republican". You got so excited that you posted this without any research at all.

Thanks for reminding me what a couple of nitwits Rangel and Hollings are.

 

[spillmind]

i outdid myself with the dollars for euro post. i notied you avoided that like topic anybody of another race.

jeff, as far as taxes goes, i don't see where you can think that taxes will not go up with anybody in the WH in 2005. incredible. maybe you have some inside information as to where the money is going to come from otherwise.

Probably because the people who wrote the letters just stumbled across the story and thought the legislation was still active.

yeah, they probably don't have a clue. you should run for a seat and wisen them up!

 

[jimnyc]

i outdid myself with the dollars for euro post. i notied you avoided that like topic anybody of another race.

If that helps you sleep at night, Spilly, keep on thinking that! I have no interest in replying to that subject. Does that mean you were avoiding ME when you failed to respond to the countless threads I've started on this board?

KIDS- GET READY TO DIE FOR GREED!!

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

What are you going to post tomorrow, that Bush is bringing back alcohol prohibition?

You're killing me here! LOL I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard!

 

[DKSuddeth]

What are you going to post tomorrow, that Bush is bringing back alcohol prohibition?

that would be enough for me to start a revolution....LOL

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
that would be enough for me to start a revolution....LOL

I know, I got the chills just typing that.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Honestly, Spillmind, a little bit of research would have saved a little face on your part.

Awww, you guyse are too hard in Spilly,
1: Was a really good post on the $4oil thread, and we all have just so much time for research, right?
2: I can't think of anybody who hasn't had errors from their source pointed out to them by a later poster.

 

[Creek]

Spillmind...I had to smile,if not almost laugh at the post about the draft....You're way off,and that was liberal imagination geting outa hand...nothing more...Now stop scaring the children....

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Awww, you guyse are too hard in Spilly,
1: Was a really good post on the $4oil thread, and we all have just so much time for research, right?
2: I can't think of anybody who hasn't had errors from their source pointed out to them by a later poster.

All in good humor, Spillmind is still more than welcome here.

You would think when you find something as 'shocking' as this on a 'questionable' site that you would spend 2 minutes to verify what exactly happened. Attributing Rangel's idiocy to Bush could have been easily avoided.

And yes, I've made my share of laughable posts, and have already received my lashings!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
i outdid myself with the dollars for euro post. i notied you avoided that like topic anybody of another race.

Actually, I read it with great interest, but I'm not really smart on international monetary policy, so I don't feel like I can contribute much.

jeff, as far as taxes goes, i don't see where you can think that taxes will not go up with anybody in the WH in 2005. incredible. maybe you have some inside information as to where the money is going to come from otherwise.
yeah, they probably don't have a clue. you should run for a seat and wisen them up! [/B]

Bush has been cutting taxes for three years straight, and has been harping on Congress to keep discretionary spending to population growth + inflation (about 4%). Why in the world would he all of a sudden raise taxes?
The only insider info I have is that I'm a part of the evil GOP machine, and none of us feel the need to raise taxes.
As far as running for a seat... in due time, my friend. This year I'm probably running for PCO (precinct committee officer). Maybe in a while, county council. Congress is a couple of decades off still.

 

[spillmind]

at least not so close to (s)election time- however, i don't see it being ruled out.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

too bad you have to subscribe to see that whole article, but we get the gist, no?

 

[jimnyc]

The most important part of the article at salon.com, the part about the Bush administration, seems to be missing. The link points to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html which gives me a "file not found"

Anyone know which article was there, and if there's another version/copy floating around?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Bush has been cutting taxes for three years straight, and has been harping on Congress to keep discretionary spending to population growth + inflation (about 4%). Why in the world would he all of a sudden raise taxes?

Bush will not raise taxes, nor will they be raised while a republican ruled house and senate with Bush lapdogs run the roost. It should be well known by now that most of the republicans in office now detest the social programs, especially social security, and the more stalwart republicans have always tried to find ways of getting rid of it. An unending war on terror, massive defense spending, and tax cuts is the way to 'starve the beast' as I've heard it called.

Starve the beast and a republican majority congress and senate will do away with social security and move americans over to privatizing their retirements with investments and stocks.