Posted on 09/17/2004 10:19:07 AM PDT by tickles
I just recieved this through a yahoo group that I belong to. (I won't comment on the senders polital leanings) a question posted was
"Is there any more backgroup information that says one way or another what the true status of these bills is other than "in committee"? ""
It is probably old news here, but any concrete info to counter the draft scare (true facts you know) might help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry for sending this type of info to the list but I feel this affects each and everyone of us. If you are a supporter of the draft then just hit delete and I'm sorry to have bothered you.
Mandatory Draft PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION! Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally affects every American since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes. There is pending legislation in the house and senate (twinbills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow below. This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada h
as already been made very difficult. Actions: Please send this on to all the parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, godparents & teachers you know. And let your children know - - it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!
This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this website: http://thomas.loc.gov/ Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two pages long. If this bill passes, it will include ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the Canadian Government which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay within it's borders. This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those that are currently active. If you go to the select service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will effect our undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren. Please take the time to write your congressman and let them know how you feel about this legislation.
http://www.house.gov http://www.senate.gov Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story. The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the Selective Service System annual performance plan, fiscal year 2004. The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft. http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp
The Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (aged 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services. Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December, 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30 point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
More Democrat propaganda to scare the voters away from Bush.
The only draft bills in congress are the ones drafted by democrats to scare voters.
Period.
No one in the military wants a conscripted military.
Yes there are draft proposals, almost all Democrat.
They have NOTHING to do with military manpower requirements.
As intended-to-fail proposals, they are straw men set up
so that Kerry+Edwards can promise to oppose them.
As serious proposals, they have everything to do with
Universal National Service - stealing two years from
every life, then 3, then 4, and why stop there ...
And National Service has nothing to do with service.
It has everything to do with indoctrination of the slaves.
Unless the DEMOCRATS institute one.............
Oh, and while I'm on this, the "There's a Draft in No Child left behind act" is BS too!
Only if Kerry is elected. The sponsors are Democrats.
It's sole purpose is to fire up idiots into thinking that there's a slight chance it may pass.
Apparently, the idiots are sufficiently spooked.
It's gotta be embarrassing to be tricked into hysteria by a boob like Rangel.
H.R 163 was introduced by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), and S. 89 was introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC). You can figure the rest out for yourself.
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services
DEMOCRATS!
Its just a Dim-Bulb scare tactic that will go nowhere.
Dear tickles,
Did you actually look at the website and the bill?
It was sponsored by Mr. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, and his illustrious fellow felons, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Democrats all.
It was introduced last year, 2003, and went nowhere, because no Republicans, and very few Democrats actually want to re-introduce the draft. The president has not, and will not ask for it.
It was a Democrat cheap trick (redundant - all their tricks are cheap) to undermine support for the war for Iraq by suggesting, throught the introduction of the bill, that we'd need to bring back the draft to continue the war.
Don't be fooled by the evil of Democrats.
sitetest
This is DU blather. They're actively looking for people to spread this tripe. Don't take the bait.
Gad, Chuck Rangel's bill continues to generate smoke and confusion (which was his intention.) It's my understanding that this draft bill is an attempt by Dems to create "war fear" and has had occasional success in that arena. Howver, it has not a snowball's chance of passage and none of the services has expressed support, to my knowledge.
As long as Republicans control the House and Senate they will not be allowed out of committee.
As long as there is a Republican President, they will not be signed into law if passed.
So9
Oh, really??
Rumsfeld: No Need for Draft; 'Disadvantages Notable'
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.
Rep. Charles Rangel said last week he was planning to introduce such legislation in the New Year. Rep. John Conyers Jr. has since expressed support.
"I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times.
Rumsfeld dismissed the notion out of hand during a Pentagon press briefing. "I don't know of anyone in this building or in the administration who thinks that anyone ought to go to war lightly," he said. "I know the president doesn't, and I know I don't."
The country doesn't need a draft because the all-volunteer force works -- in fact, the United States has the most effective military in the world precisely because it is all-volunteer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said.
"(The all-volunteer force is) efficient; it's effective; it's given the United States of America, the citizens of this great country, a military that is second to none," Myers said.
"The people that are in the armed services today … are there because they want to be there and are ready and willing and, without any question, capable of doing whatever the president may ask," Rumsfeld added.
The secretary described "notable disadvantages" to having a conscripted force. He said people are involuntarily forced to serve, some for less than they could earn on the outside. There are many exemptions, which change all the time, thus providing for unfair situations. Troops are "churned" through training, serve the minimum amount of time and leave -- thus causing more money to be spent to churn more draftees through the system.
He also dismissed the notion that the all-volunteer force leads to a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities being killed in battle.
"I do not know that that's historically correct," Rumsfeld said. "And I do not know that, even if it were historically correct, that it's correct today."
He and Myers kept coming back to their bottom line: America is better off for the force it has today.
"We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered," Rumsfeld said. "They want to be doing what it is they're doing. And we're just lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, 'I'm ready; let me do that.'"
You got that right, Servant. I especially like the 'or civilian service' part of their bill - make everyone put in 2 years of service. B.S.! I wonder what kind ov 'civilian service' the dims would come up with? Peace Corps? Working with Jimmuh' on his Habitat for Po' Folk? When you consider all the possibilities, the mind reels.
Not likely to happen. I'll go if my number comes up, but I'd probably fail the physical again. But who knows, maybe I won't.
Oh, and the bill in Congress regarding the draft is a Democratic bill, not a Republican bill.
actually I myself don't fall for this. I was just looking for valid counter arguments. As for soccar mom's. this list group this appeared on is full of them, thus the reason I was asking for good counter points.
from reading so far, the best are it's a democrat bill that's been in sent ot committee where it's been sitting for the last year and a half, so voting democrat would probably get us a draft. (that'll go over great with the original poster, I'll put on my asbestus suit, hehe)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.