Will the draft return?

Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | HOYT CANADY

[SmithL]

Will the draft return?

Only if Dems prevail.

[dr_who_2]

Will there be another major war?

[DSBull]

This is an election time play of the DUmmies. They know most people only get information by hearing it on the news or reading it in the newspapers. Like Goebbels, the DNC is repeating the lie and often has possible that Bush is going to implement the Draft. They even brought legislation to implement the draft at the same time, knowing that most people will not even check that it was liberals that did it.

[whershey]

Yep your right. If Kerry gets elected I'd probably put some money on it. There's no need for a draft as of the moment. The training of the Iraq army is going well, and Iraqi security forces are taking a growing role in hunting down insurgents. Kerry's adding of 40,000 more troops could only happen with a draft. In particular when you take into consideration how many soldier won't reenlist due to his being elected. Soldiers don't want to serve under a traitor.

[MadAnthony1776]

The draft is only one of those secret plans Kerry keeps saying Bush has but is actually a Democratic scam to scare people into voting for Kerry. They bring it up but didn't say that fellow Democrats were the ones that placed the bills on the agenda. They tried through spin to make it look like a secret Republican plan. President Bush needs to say that there is no plan to bring back the draft and that he'll veto any bill bringing it back.

[TommyDale]

Kerry is planning on reinstating the draft.

[RISU]

I am a vet with two tours in Nam in my history. Personally, I do not have objection to the "draft" because it provides the manpower needed to the President, and it assures that the Baker's son and the banker's son work together and build a mutual respect. That is a healthy thing. However, I disagree with "deferments' of any kind. When you number comes up, you serve if qualified, full stop.

The Draft, however, will probably never be seen again since we are unlikely to be engaged in a "set piece" engagement involving large armies in the future.

So, it is probably a "non-issue, and shouldn't be allowed to cause anyone to get their knickers in a twist.

Maybe a modified version of the Draft could be considered. That would identify "selectees", but not admit them unless they met all the highest physical and mental standards of the service.

A Draft is a "fair" way to tap the energies of young men when you are talking about National Service - PROVIDED THERE ARE NOT DEFERMENTS. NONE AT ALL.

The problem with the "all volunteer" service is that is already becoming a "mercenary force". You do not want people serving their country to get "benefits". You want them serving their country to fulfill their solemn duty to defend it. If you bring them into service we all owe them class A equipment, training, and pay. But select on lottery to spread the wealth among all the classes of society, not just the up from the bottom types.

[G.Mason]

"Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, last year introduced a bill in the House to revive the draft. Rangel, an opponent of the war in Iraq, sought to make the military more representative of the nation, with limited exemptions for the affluent who presumably would serve alongside the less affluent."

Hogwash!

Charlie "I'm a Korean War Vet" Rangle is a pot stirrer. No more no less.

Like many in the Congress, Charlie has found a lifetime occupation feeding from the trough, much like a farmers pigs.

Unlike these porkers in Congress, the pig is a valuable commodity and his feeding is relative to his worth. It also terminates when he is slaughtered for food.

How would you like your Congress critter? Rare, medium, or well done?

[federal]

"It negates man's fundamental right — the right to life — and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."

While I agree a man's rights are fundamental, people have to form unions and nations of like minded people before they will be respected.

Take these highminded principles to North Korea and explain to Kim Jung Il that you demand your rights. You'll be dead before sundown.

The actual issue is are you willing to fight to defend those roghts for yourself as well as for your fellow citizens. That is the real choice it isn't as if we chose to be attack by islamic terrorists, the chose is whether or not your willing to defend your Constitutional Rights for yourself and others or not. Because those rights won't buy you anything but dead with islamic fascists or communist dictators.

[freddiedavis]

not under gw bush

[Desparado]

As a resident of Knoxville, I can tell you that this is one of the most Liberal leaning papers I have ever seen. Their star columnists are Molly Ivins and Don Williams, a true left wing nutcase! They search the LA Times and NYT daily to run there worst Bush hating articles they can find, and they load their letter to the editors sections with ranting and raving from every left wing cause they can find. The fact that they blanket the community with "Free" copies begging for subscriptions is a testament to how many people won't take this papear serioiusly. I believe that probably half the people get the paper just to keep up on the UT football news. GO VOLS!!!

[Boundless]

No mention of what HR 163 actually was (UNS).
Here's an updated summary.
__________________________________________________
The Draft Hoax of 2004 - edition 2004-10-10.11:15

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
We have here a case of the
"Reverse Big Lie"

Not only is the "secret Bush draft" a lie,
the truth is a secret Kerry-Edwards draft.

The Kerry camp coordinators have fired up a series of scare
ads on the draft. As is usual for "progressives", accusing
their opponents of what they themselves are doing.

Kerry has accused Bush of having a secret draft plan, based
on no evidence at all. Kerry himself has been trying to
cover up his own statements. What would a President
Kerry be likely to do?

Before getting to the details, it's important to note that
this issue is not primarily about a military draft. It's
about Universal National Service (UNS). Stealing two years
from every life, then 3, and heck, why stop there ...

And National Service is less about service than about
indoctrinating the slaves by controlling the agenda of
the approved forms of service.

But make no mistake about it, if Kerry is elected, they'll
also need a draft to meet military manpower requirements,
because voluntary enlistments and re-enlistments will drop
to near zero. The National Guard is already seeing signs
that people are waiting to see who will be the next
President.

Furthermore, it will be very dangerous to be in a Kerry
military. Apart from more Mogudishu disasters, expect
the troops to be exposed to random war crimes tribunals.

The Bush Administration has done zero to move toward a
draft and does not support it.

The only bills submitted are by Democrats.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:

The House forced a vote on HR 163 in early October,
and it was defeated by a massive 402-2 vote. Even
its own sponsor (Rangel) voted against it. Yet the
draft hoax continues. Let's look a bit deeper.

HR 163 (aka SB 89), bears the title:
"Universal National Service Act of 2003"
it includes the provision:
"...or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the
national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

... and for other purposes ...

This was way more than a military draft bill.
It was conscription for completely undefined and
arbitrary purposes - involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery,
doing whatever bidding the ruling class might prescribe.
Fear the ruling class that advocates mandatory national
service.


Bush has said he'd veto HR 163.
Kerry has said exactly nothing about this bill specifically.

Although Kerry and Edwards are on the campaign trail
promising to oppose a "draft", they in fact support
UNS, but are hiding that. And even if they were to
oppose UNS, you already know what a Kerry promise
or position is worth.

Where have they been on this issue?

Kerry has removed pages, formerly at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice and
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/communityservice_high.html
A copy of the latter was saved from the memory hole here:
http://www.mcgath.com/kerryslavery.html

"As President, John Kerry will ensure that every
high school student in America does community
service as a requirement for graduation. . . ."

The current K+E National Service is more watered down:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/
Apparently, the older position was too honest.

And Edwards? Go see:
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/issues/educ/service.html

Under the Kerry plan, of course, we can expect
exemptions for the children of rich politicians.

The Selective Service System is already in place, and
could be reactivated in the event of some unforseen
emergency (Canada threatens to invade us :-). If Kerry
is defeated, the SSS, unneeded since Vietnam, is most
likely to remain right where it is today - dormant.

> This scare is getting to people on the college campus.
> It has to be responded to, not minimized and disregarded.

So share what I've written with them. Have them read
the legislation and check out the sponsors. Tell them
to do their own research on what Bush people have said,
and what Kerry & Co. have historically advocated. Tell
them to look at which faction is more likely to stick by
their historical positions.

Someone is lying. The only question is who.

Kerry is leading the naive into a trap. He's opened
a "hide out from the draft" shelter and invited the
kids to come in.

After it's too late, the sign will be pulled off to
reveal a new sign:

Universal National Service Processing Center

[Desparado]

Sorry for the incorrect spelling, I was up late last night celebrating the big win. Haven't had my second cup of coffee yet.

[PMCarey]

While Bush might have no plans to bring back the draft, as Alter notes, he or a future president could be forced into it by events.

Damn we need to keep from having "events". What the &%$#@* is that supposed to mean? What a semantically meaningless and useless statement. Republicans should hammer the Democrats on this issue. We should be seeing ads stating that the Democrats want to have the draft reinstated and point out that in only the last week a bill sponsored by the Democrats to reinstate the draft was introduced in the House. Let 'em stew on that from now until election day.

[KateatRFM]

There is no need for a military draft, because as Mr. Bush pointed out on Friday, there is no need for two year cannon fodder these days; by the time you get them trained, their time's up.

What they really want to do is punish "The Rich" by attempting to force their children into the military, for the usual reasons of unreasoning hatred for anyone who has five cents that they believe is rightfully theirs instead ... and the idea of using the military as punishment ought to be repugnant to anyone who stops to think.

And as far as the government having the right to grab all young people out of their preparation for productive life, at any time, is guaranteed to keep people from marrying, starting a business, going into technical training (particularly medical school), and most tellingtly, from having a family. How long will it be until we have the stories of pregnant Heather and Jasmine forced into service digging sewers for the ghetto?

The one thing that the people so fixated on punishing people for being well enough off to have choices invariably miss, is that they are well enough off to have choices. All the wealthy people who don't want their children drafted will simply send them to another country for the duration. Remember the short-lived punishment tax on yachts, that merely caused people to buy their yachts in other countries and decimated the American boat building industry?

[Desparado]

I understand your statement. And if you and I can find out this information, one would think a medium sized city News paper would know better than to fill a whole page of their Sunday Edition with a useless scare story about the draft. Especially after what President Bush said in the Debate Friday night.

[alloysteel]

The issue of a national draft was brought before Congress this past week. For some time, this bill HR163, languished in committee. Recent talk of a possibility of a draft was brought up, so the bill was voted out of committee and put up for a floor vote. The bill was DEFEATED, 402-2.

The President has no AUTHORITY to call for a draft now, and from all appearances, the House of Representatives would not now give the President the authority. President Bush is PROHIBITED from calling a draft, no matter how desperately some may believe it may be needed.

Democrat constituents everywhere are safe from a draft as long as Bush remains in office. Of course, if a President Kerry would need a draft to fill the ranks on the expanded army he would put in the field, it may be necessary to reconsider similar legislation.

[libstripper]

All this talk about a renewed draft is DemonRat Barbra Striesand. Clinton reduced the active Army by nearly 50% at a time when the Army was all volunteer. Before that, President Reagan built up the Army and the rest of the armed forces in the 80's entirely with voluntary recruiting. Thus, we could nearly double the size of the Army by increasing our voluintary recruiting, if that becomes necessary.

[ex-snook]

The last war we won had a real draft without the Canada or National Guard opt-outs. The real question is will the war on terrorism be over quickly after election day.

[libstripper]

I am too, and you're so right. In early September, shortly after the Swiftvets began running their ads, I sent the Sentinel a letter to the editor that described who the Swiftvets were, detailed their basic charges against Kerry, and said Kerry could clear up most of those charges just by signing a Form 180. Although they had earlier published a column that smeared the Swiftvets without refuting a single one of their charges, the Sentinel never ran my letter. To this day I have seen little, if any, serious discussion of the Swiftvets' charges in the Sentinel's letters to the editor columns, although they ran a large series of letter discussing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911."