Why is it that the dems who hated the draft during Vietnam are rushing to reactivate it now? IMHO it's to force people that are against the WOT into service so it can be dismantled from the inside.
The House bill, H.R. 163, was introduced by a Democrat from New York, Rep. Charles Rangel, who proposed the bill as a symbolic admonition of the possible consequences of war, rather than an actual legislative proposal, thus arousing public opposition to a war that Rangel believes is unjust, according to his Web site.A good point to make with younger voters this year: Conscription is a Democratic Party proposal.The Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., was proposed with similar intent, but with one exception. The Senate bill was proposed to draw attention to the issue of the voluntary draft, which, 30 years before, was considered biased, according to Victor.
Of course, what they are trying to do is make the military unpopular.
-Eric
Headline is a lie. As it says in the article,
...may be proposed as symbolic gestures, "and the fact that they never received a hearing, simply referred to committee, just emphasized that they are symbolic gestures rather than real policy makers."
To propose a bill as a "symbolic gesture" is hardly to explore the possibilities of the effect of that bill.
It's really irritating that this COMPLETE NON-STORY keeps getting play in the press. Look, which part of the following don't people get:
both bills have been stagnant since Jan. 7, 2003 .... they are symbolic gestures rather than real policy makers .... Charles Rangel, who proposed the bill as a symbolic admonition of the possible consequences of war, rather than an actual legislative proposal ....
Seriously: WHAT DON'T YOU GET, Katherine Britton? Symbolic, stagnant, dead-on-arrival bills that are not "actual legislative proposals"... and that's a story about "draft possibilities"?
Give me a break, please.
> Also, the bills mandate that those not selected
> for military service would be required to fulfill
> a two-year obligation in a civilian capacity.
Bingo. And this is why the Dems support the draft.
Apart from being supporters of slavery (and if this
isn't "involuntary servitude" what is?), you can be
sure that whatever else the "alternative" service
involved will include copious amounts of liberal
tribo-collectivist indoctrination.
Hey, draft advocates, why only two years?
Why not 5, or 10, or 20?
In terms of getting numbers, we don't need a draft. If needed, all President Bush needs to do is ask for volunteers. My buds and I in Gen X and Y will be the first to line up (some already have volunteered). The cause is just.
As "sneakypete" (who used to post here) has stated, they'll use to the threat of a draft to institute a program to trade citizenship for military service. (Sheeple will gladly accept it, since it would mean they don't get drafted). Bush and company gets a cheap military, the RATS get more voters, and the ruling elites get a de-Americanized military which they could one day use for domestic edict enforcement.
Once they "solve" this problem, I expect them to use the momentum to push for a national service program. Opportunists in both parties will again use the removal of the military draft threat to push this through (i.e., we worked our butts off so junior wouldn't have to go to Iraq for 2 years, and the best we could do was get this compromise where all he has to do is perform "national service" for a couple of years instead).
The left will relish the chance to indoctrinate our youth. Many of the right will get sucked in under the guise of "patriotism".
But make no mistake: any "national service" program would be nothing more than a federal indoctrination effort to 1)consolidate their control over those already in the system, 2) get more citizens into the system (like homeschooled Americans-- can't have a million independent thinking kids out there, 3) set up a national ID card consisting of biometrics, and 4) identify "troublemakers".