posted
I read a letter to the editor in the Press of Atlantic City this morning. The woman who wrote the letter claimed that there is a bill going through the Senate right now, to reinstate the draft for men AND women between the ages of 18 and 26, and they are trying to keep it quiet until after the elections.
I can't find the letter on the Press of AC's website, and I can't find any recent articles on the subject.
But at the same time, I can see this happening, with the war in Iraq and Afganistan that's dragging on, and the general public not being very supportive of either.
Does anyone else know anything about this? Even if you don't, what do think would happen if it is really in the Senate and it does get passed?
It scares me--being a 22 year old woman in good health. I can't help but look at the people between the ages of 18 and 26 (being a college student, I know a lot), and think, what if this happens and they get drafted and have to die for something they don't believe in? What if I am drafted?
These are scary times.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bills to reinstate the draft are considered anti-war measures. I can't find the original call for these, but the basic reasoning was that public opinion is more likely to reign in the use of military force if non-vounteers were in the service.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it's not as bad as I thought, but you never know.
quote:The agency already has in place a special system to register and draft health care personnel age 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis. According to Flahavan, the agency will expand this system to be able to rapidly register and draft computer specialists and linguists, should the need ever arise. But he stressed that the agency has received no request from the Pentagon to do so.
They may not have yet--but what if they do? 20 to 44 is a wide age range, and I know lots of folks with computer skills.
That's really scary though, imagine, being 35 and settled into your life, and then the government comes along b/c you have some sort of skill they need and they press you into service, even though you may not want to.
I see that the article says that they are trying to put in incentives to join--but what if that doesn't work?
posted
Maybe it had to do with the fact that someone in the last administration released a lot of folks from their post-volunteer recall status. That is, for 6 years after your enlistment ends, you could be recalled. My husband was released and happened to be an Arabic Linguist. I'd say such a draft might could conceivably be to reclaim folks that the military actually trained.
The more information you give, I'd say this is EXACTLY what's going on here.
posted
Many people probably consider this barbaric, but I would actively oppose any effort to draft women.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was pretty sure that there was a bit of stuff sometime around the end of last year about President Bush's administration repopulating the draft boards. A quick google search gave me something at Salon.
I have also read analyses of the military situation that predict that, given the extended nature of current deployment and the uncertainty of when it will end, the military may be looking at a manpower shortage in the near future as less people choose to re-up in both regular military and reserves.
I obviously don't know a whole heck of alot about this, but those two things made me worried at the time. I still think, barring another large scale terrorist attack on American soil, that restarting the draft would be political suicide, but then so would running out of troops to fight what you have termed necessary wars.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our sales-oriented country, I see them trying to sweeten the military deal before they institute a draft. As noted, it would burden an already unpopular war with non-volunteers being sent into danger.
I am wondering, though...wasn't there a huge upswing in military enrollement after 9/11/01? I remember hearing about giant increases in people putting in for military jobs. What happened to that?
This wouldn't be a problem if the US government would put up the dough and listen to Skynet's ideas on a robotic military infrastructure...sheesh...
posted
The idea of the draft itself is barbaric. The government has no right to force you to put your life on the line for the country. You might as well say the government has the right to kill people when it feels the need to.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops...read Boon's links. Never mind. They are coming for us all. I think it is interesting that they put the language "including women" into it, as if saying "all young persons" might somehow omit them.
I would say coming for YOU all (young folks) but this new definition of "young" (18-44) makes me young again! Woohoo! Radical, dude.
posted
Last time there was thoughts on reinstating the drat...the majority of the military didn't want a draft...they don't really see a reason to have that many people that don't want to be in the military to be in there...nor did they think they needed it. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't surprise me if they are looking - very behind the scenes - at reinstating the draft. I've heard in local news reports that up to twenty-five percent of reserves called up to active duty are planning on getting out as soon as they can due to the way they are being treated as far as being given one length of time that they are going to be away from home and then having that length of time extended again and again, separations when their obligation was up being suspended, and that sort of thing. If the military keeps doing this, they are going to be losing a lot more personnel.
These men and women often have families to take care of, and even though they want to serve their country, they are being asked to make sacrifices that the people in the administration who are ordering these things, you can be sure, are not willing to make themselves.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't believe the government has the right to force anyone to work for it, especially if that job has a moderate chance of getting you killed. What about if our country is under attack? Well, I suspect that plenty of people would be joining the military then. If a country can't raise an army large enough to defend itself from destruction without coercion, perhaps it should cease to exist. I know I'd at least stand out on my front lawn and throw rocks at any invaders. It worked for Pippin and Merry (well, until the Orcs captured them)!
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's important enough, and there are too few soldiers, the country should just keep raising wages for soldiers until enough are willing to join. If we aren't willing to pay that much, it's obviously not that important to us, and we certainly shouldn't be willing to force people to give up their lives against their will.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but this new definition of "young" (18-44) makes me young again
Where are they getting this 18-44 range? I read the senate/house bills that were linked to above, and they both still have the 18-26 usual draft age range...
posted
Take the bill, light it on fire, and shove it up.....hey, hi. The comment made before about the military not wanting the draft is right. At least I don't. I have enough problems with the volunteers, what am I going to do with draftees? I don't want to think about it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is unlikely to change, although early this year Rep. Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat, proposed bringing back the draft to raise awareness about the war.
Rangel, who opposed the war in Iraq, hoped that the idea of bringing back the draft would help spur similar thoughts about the war, if not actions. But most say it had little effect on the student population.
posted
They keep telling my brother to register for the armed forces or he'll be forced to pay something like five (twenty-five? *shrugs*) thousand dollars in fines. My Bummy's too lazy to write to them and say, "Look, he's autistic!"
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I should have mentioned, I caught that the first time through. I'm somewhat abivilent about the tactic. I sort of agree with the setiment, that only by making it relevant to people are they going to think seriously about the war. On the other hand, that's a pretty underhanded way to do it. I think Rangel should be ashamed of himself.
Still, I'm concerned about what has and is going to happen to our military in the environment of widespread military actions of indefinite ends. A lot of our force is built off of people who really never anticpated going into long term combat situations. Barring a significant increase in the benefits of being in the military, I'm not sure how long we can field enough people to achieve what we've been trying to achieve.
This isn't a problem I've heard discussed that much from the people who are going to have to deal with it if it occurs and I eas concerned when I heard the the Bush administration was quietly putting the mechanisms in place for reinstating the draft. Not so much for the draft itself, but more that, if that's their fall-back plan, I'm afraid that, after public outrage shuts that down, there isn't going to be any other plan.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Disabled men, clergymen, and men who believe themselves to be conscientiously opposed to war must register because there is no draft in effect, nor is there a program to classify men at this time. Should the Congress and the President reinstate a draft, a classification program would begin. Registrants would be examined to determine suitability for military service, and they would also have ample time to claim exemptions, deferments, or postponements. To be inducted, men would have to meet the physical, mental, and administrative standards established by the military services. Local Boards would meet in every American community to determine exemptions and deferments for clergymen, ministerial students, and men who file claims for reclassification as conscientious objectors.
quote: Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.
Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.
... STUDENT FINANCIAL AID Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
CITIZENSHIP The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
FEDERAL JOB TRAINING The Workforce Investment Act (formerly called the Job Training Partnership Act - JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
FEDERAL JOBS A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See State Legislation.
Selective Service wants young men to register. It does not want them to be prosecuted or denied benefits. If a draft is ever needed, it must be as fair as possible, and that fairness depends on having as many eligible men as possible registered. In the event of a draft, for every man who fails to register, another man would be required to take his place in service to his country.
You could probably register him online yourself if your Bummy doesn't want to deal with it.
posted
The Army is losing a lot of soldiers at re-enlistment time because it is not honoring its promises to retirees. The Army wage-earners see how the retirees are being treated (lowering pensions, reducing health care benefits that were promised to them at their time of service) and are wondering if their own retirement benefits will be reduced at the same rate.
The big problem is not how much the military is paying its soldiers (or how little), the big issue is quality of life. The housing is falling apart, the healthcare benefits are being reduced, and deployments and workloads are increasing.
The military needs to work on keeping the (trained and seasoned) soldiers (marines, airmen, and sailors) it's got; not on dragging a bunch of draftees into service, training them up, and sending them to battle green and unwilling.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Army is losing a lot of soldiers at re-enlistment time
My cousin is an example of that. He told the Army where to shove it about 3 years ago. However, that was because they wouldn't give him the rating(job) he wanted when he went to reenlist. (I know rating is a navy term, but I don't know what the army calls it)
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right, Stan, it happens all of the time. Heck, it happened with MY brother (he chaptered out after his rating [as you call it] was discontinued WHILE he was in Boot Camp). The Army calls ratings/jobs MOS's--Military (something) Specialties, I think. I know that it's MOS, I just don't know what MOS stands for. *grin*
Recruiters are taught to lie. It's a fact. My dad recruited for a short time while he was in the Navy, and he couldn't handle it. He was promising these young people the moon when he *knew* the military was going to renege.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a lot of them will lie. Others just stretch the truth....a lot. MOS, eh? ok. Then again, ya don't always get the brightest people joining the military either. I will have to start a new thread on this story later as it will greatly derail this thread.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The idea of the draft itself is barbaric. The government has no right to force you to put your life on the line for the country. You might as well say the government has the right to kill people when it feels the need to.
The fact remains, if you live in a country, ANY country, you should be patriotic enough to fight for it. Barbaric or not, simplistic or complex, a draft is very often necesary to keep our countries free. The government has an obligation to keep the country that it serves, safe. The American Government is elected by the people. If you don't like the idea of a draft, elect someone else! If you've never voted, your voice on this forum should count as nill (of course that statement only counts for those over eighteen).
The majority of the qouted comment is ignorant banter. I think that it is necessary to point out that comments that portray the military as a group of stupid people, fighting for stupid things should be reviewed and in the minority of cases, edited. Please keep in mind that there are those of us on the board that are Active in the United States military and those comments are recieved as hostile. Personally, I think a draft is a very good thing for this country. If everything were done the way I want it done, everyone would serve a minimum of two years of service. But that's me.
quote:The fact remains, if you live in a country, ANY country, you should be patriotic enough to fight for it.
Why would this be true? Heck, I don't even think living in a country obligates you to waive it's flag around if you don't want to, much less kill yourself for it. Death is by no means a part of the social contract you enter into by happening to be born in a given country.
quote: If you don't like the idea of a draft, elect someone else!
I would almost certainly do that, but the problem is that the majority might overrule me and make my voice on the matter null and void. And this is a case, just like the majority deciding to eliminate free speech or the majority deciding to execute me without due process, where the majority has no right to make such a decision. Life is a fundamental right - the MOST fundamental, I'd expect. Thus trying to force people into the military is simply tyranny, whether done by an individual or by the majority. It should not be tolerated by anyone, and I would hope that most people would simply refuse to go along with it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that this is being discussed by those within the government proves that this isn't tyrannical by any means. Don't take an extreme view and discuss it as fact.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the SO of someone in the Army, I know that during the deployment I felt much better knowing that the guys who were out there with him actually volunteered to be so. If Paul's being shot at I want him to at least be with someone who chose to do his job - to watch out for both himself and his brothers. War is difficult enough without questioning who has your back, or why they're there and whether those reasons will affect their actions negatively.
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that this is being discussed by those within the government proves that this isn't tyrannical by any means.
Well, no. I'm sure everything the Nazi's did was discussed by those within the government - that doesn't make it not tyrannical.
If it's forcing me to go to war without me volunteering to die, it's tyranncial, because it's using power to take something you have no right to take - namely, life.
quote:Xaposert, its called the Social Contract. Look up John Locke.
Remember the inalienable right to life? That meant you couldn't give it up, even as part of the social contract.
The government cannot do whatever it wants and then claim the social contract obligates us to obey. The government has its end to hold up too - and that includes not violating fundamental human rights, first and foremost of which is the right to life.
(Also...John Locke's arguments don't really hold too well, in no small part because people don't really ever voluntarily consent to any social contract.)
posted
Wow, it's just like OSC said in that infamous column. No one is interested in defending the country.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing that says you must die. You might have to risk your life, but in such a time as a draft is called everyone's lives are endangered by the threat to be combated. The unalienable right to life doesn't mean that your life cannot be taken or put at risk. If such were true then we wouldn't be allowed to have any standing army and the death penalty couldn't exist.
People in fact due voluntarily agree to the Social Contract. The Social Contract states that in return for giving up certain "rights" the government provides services. One of those services is defense. By accepting the services the government provides it is implied that you agree to the Social Contract. That's the theory upon which our government is based.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I think the question is here--what are we defending ourselves against? The enemy is on the other side of the world. I know the whole WMD argument was used, but none have been found. It seemed more like a bullying operation than an actual defense of our homeland.
If we were to be invaded by another country, I think more people would take up arms against them. But right now, we are the aggressors, and not many citizens are for this cause.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven How do you know when they've reinstated the Draft?
When President Bush rejoins the nationa gaurd and President Clinton goes back to college in London.
I realize you're joking but if this is the same bill I read 2 months ago, they removed the college exemptions.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that the idea of the draft is evil or tyrranical smacks me as overly idealistic. Imagine what the world would be like now if the US had not drafted anybody during WWII. Would the world be a better or worse place to live in?
It was said that if the citizens of a country don't man up and defend their country, that country doesn't deserve to exist. Just because people are stupid/selfish, they don't deserve to be occupied by a tyrranical force.
If a country decided to never, under any circumstances, institute the draft, then that country just signed its death warrant. It's just a matter of time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it works the same way as before (Nam), then don't open the envelope and you can join the branch of your more preferred choosing. The navy hangs out far from land and drops bombs. Not that I suggest it. I like the navy, but am using it for personnal gains. Not only do I get the GI Bill (about $21,000), but I also get the navy college fund ($50,000). Oh yeah, I have plans. Oh and While in active duty I get 100% tuition assistance to take college courses. I am about half way if not more to a Mechanical Engineering degree. My roommate only needs to take 2 classes to get a BA in the same field.
[ March 25, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If such were true then we wouldn't be allowed to have any standing army and the death penalty couldn't exist.
The death penalty shouldn't exist, and we should not have any standing army in which people are not volunteers.
quote:People in fact due voluntarily agree to the Social Contract. The Social Contract states that in return for giving up certain "rights" the government provides services. One of those services is defense. By accepting the services the government provides it is implied that you agree to the Social Contract.
That is hardly voluntary though. For one thing, you do it at such an early age that you don't even know what you are doing. For another thing, how can you possibly reject it? Give up your life, your family, your land, your possessions, your community, and move across the world? You might as well put a gun to people's heads and call it "voluntary" when they consent to whatever you ask.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
