PDA

View Full Version : Anybody hear about the MANDATORY DRAFT that may start in June 2005?


CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:17 PM
If Bush has his way, there will be a mandatory draft for ALL MEN AND WOMEN between the ages of 18-26. College will not be an option. Even if you're in the middle of college, you still go if you're called. Canada is not an option either. The US made an agreement with Canada that they have the right to send people back to the US if they are caught trying to cross the border or even if they're already in Canada they can be sent back. Canadian officials said that anybody who really wants to leave will have to go through the immigration process like anybody else, which can take up to a year.

However, the people who actually brought up the bill at first were pretty leftist liberals, specifically in New York. So the good news is that I think their goal is to get the bill up and running so they can vote it down. I guess their goal is to keep putting down having a mandatory draft every single year. But it's ultimately going to be passed one of these years.

There may be other ways around it though. For example, I will be doing two things. Because I am a pacifist, I am going to send a letter addressed to myself saying that I am unable to fight in the war because I am strongly opposed to it based on my beliefs. That way in the unlikely event I get called up, I can give them that note and one of two things will likely happen:

1) I simply won't go
2) I'll go, but I won't be out on the battlefield; I'll be doing something else to serve our country that doesn't involve trenches and a gun.

I also intend to milk the ****** card for all it's worth in the unlikely event I get called up;)

BUT STILL...this shit is going to go down potentially and we as a nation honestly support it?

cheesestix
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Where did you hear all of this?

How about posting a link?

Bush flat out said that he would not reinstate the draft, so show us all a link where he said otherwise....

Also, the only person that I've heard of that has talked about the draft recently was Charles Rangle. And not for the reasons that you spoke of. His reasoning was so that the demographic of the armed forces would be more representative of the US population. :rolleyes: (However, if you look at the demographic of the armed forces compared to the demographic of the US, it's not really that far off.) I think that he thinks he's going to get a bunch of "whites" and "rich kids" drafted, but 1) the military is already mostly white, and 2) what is the percentage of kids that are "rich"? 1/1000? 1/10000? I'm sure the military already has more than this ratio enlisted.

Bacardi
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:38 PM
I'm going to claim I'm gay, and OUT. And also if I have to, I'll go check myself into a mental institution before I go and fight for that bastard son of an idiot!

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:42 PM
I don't have a link...I got the information off of an email that has some links you can go to that give information on the bill...here's the email (it's gonna come out a little bit weird, so sorry in advance)

THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL BE AWARE OF!! BUT
IT'S
> BEING KEPT A

SECRET:


Mandatory draft for boys and girls(ages 18-26) starting
June
15, 2005.

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.
This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education
as a shelter
and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into
Canada
has already
been made very difficult.
Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you
know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. . . 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/ (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 Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting
to
> dodge the
> >
> > draft to stay within it's borders.
> >
> >
> >
> > This bill also includes the extention of military service
> for all those
> >
> > that are currently active. If you go to the selcet
service
> web site
> >
> > and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see 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 undergradates, our children and our
> grandchildren. Please
> >
> > take the time to write your congressman and let them know
> how you feel
> >
> > about this
> >
> > legislation.
> >
> >
> >
> > www.house.gov
> >
> > 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 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp
> entitled the
> >
> > Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for
the
> common
> >
> > defense
> >
> > by requiring that all young persons (age 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.
> >
> > What to do:
> >
> > Tell your friends
> >
> >
> >
> > Contact your legislators and ask them to oppose these bills
> >
> >
> >
> > Just type "congress" into the aol search engine and input
> your zip
> >
> > code.
> >
> > A list of your reps will pop up with a way to email them
> directly.
> >
> > We can't just sit and pretend that by ignoring it, it will
> go away. We
> >
> > must
> >
> > voice our concerns and create the world we want to live in
> for our
> >
> > children and
> >
> > grandchildren.

saki
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:45 PM
There's always this option: http://www.marryanamerican.ca/ ;)

Seriously, I don't think it'll happen.

apoet29
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:45 PM
I haven't heard anything about a draft, but I suspect if Bush wants to continue to mobolize forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as keep soliders on designated bases all over the world, he will have no choice but to reinstitute the draft. At this point, most young adults do not want to enter the reserves because they know that they will sent off to war. Not even college is worth dying for anymore. At least, this is my opinion.

cheesestix
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Dude, that EMAIL IS INACCURATE AND TRYING TO SCARE YOU!!!!!!!! Obviously, it succeeded. :rolleyes:

Why do people believe EVERYTHING that someone sends them???? :rolleyes:

Check this out:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=200

Summary



Several FactCheck subscribers have asked about an e-mailed rumor that is causing a lot of anxiety. It claims that steps are being taken to resume military conscription next year. But the message abounds with misinformation and half-truths. And some experts say conscription is the last thing the military wants or needs, despite being stretched thin in Iraq.


Analysis



We can't say whether this one is deliberate misinformation or just sloppy reporting, but it sure is generating a lot of needless anxiety. It amounts to another "lying e-mail" of the kind we've warned about before (check the links to "related articles" at the end of this one.)

....

The Scare Story

A different -- and misleading -- story is being circulated by e-mail and posted on any number of mostly left-leaning websites, claiming that the Bush administration is "quietly trying" to pass legislation to reactivate the draft, and that $28 million has been added to the Selective Service budget this year to prepare for a military draft that could start "as early as June 15, 2005."

The message is false or misleading on several counts.

--The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.


One bill is HR 163 , whose principal sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.

In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):

Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.



....

SOUND FAMILIAR????? :rolleyes:

cheesestix
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:01 AM
In case you need more proof:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_draft.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40702

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3240838,00.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Sorry, but you got duped! Who knows how many votes this kind of crap swung into Kerry's favor. Luckily, it didn't work.

Bacardi
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:06 AM
cheesestix, If Bush does currently keep overtaxing our military and each day more and more of them die. And without a doubt, less are joining each day, as is dying. How long before you seriously think this "false idea of a draft" is going to have before it takes place?

I'm sure during Vietnam when it first started nobody thought there would be a draft. But several years and lost lives later there was one. I should know, my father was drafted by them, and the only reason he wasn't sent to Vietnam for his first tour was because Kenedy was assasinated.

I'm not saying this is true or not. But several of us young enough, and not blind enough to fight and die for the fool in office better start working on a back up plan. Be it insanity, pleaing gay, or whatever... You better get something going. Because our military is already overtaxed, and it's not going to be too much longer before what that email preaches is going to be the cold hard facts. You can't argue that our military is just fine. You know more are dying everyday than are joining. And we have our guards and reservists over there... Do you think, logically that sounds like our military isn't in need of a boost in sign ups?

cheesestix
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:25 AM
Iraq is not Vietnam, not even close.

That email is bogus. Its only intent was to scare people into voting against Bush, and it probably succeeded.

You know more are dying everyday than are joining.

Okay, that statement is just assinine! :rolleyes: Do you actually put any thought into what you say?

selking
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:25 AM
I'll be 17 on June 3rd

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:27 AM
That email is bogus. Its only intent was to scare people into voting against Bush, and it probably succeeded.


That email was created AFTER Bush got elected.

Venus Forever
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:30 AM
If this happens, I'll bet you American "gay" males population will be at an all-time high.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:33 AM
If this happens, I'll bet you American "gay" males population will be at an all-time high.I'm pretty sure you can't just walk in and say that. Otherwise that's what everyone would do. To say you can't fight for whatever reason is an extremely lengthy and elaborate process. You need to send a letter to yourself way before you were ever called up to go to war saying you can't fight for that particular reason, you need to have family who can verify it, friends, people who know you but don't have any particular relation to you, you're definitely questioned about it. It's not nearly as simple as you think.

selking
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:34 AM
how aboot moving to canada eh?

Bacardi
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:38 AM
Can't move to Canada, Canada wouldn't allow it. Probably the best bet you have, wouldn't even be the gay deal... it would be trying to act insane. If they think you are a loaded firecracker ready to shoot your fellow troops then there is no way in hell they're going to send you over there. :lol:

And Cheesestix, you avoided my question. Is the military not overtaxed? If the current trend continues how can they not start a draft unless there is a sudden rise in the number of people signing up for volunteer military duty. Try to answer the correct question this time. Of course it's not Vietnam, but once again we're somewhere that we have no damn business being. So answer the question, do you see a lot of people signing up for military service every day? Don't you think that if we keep our nose over there soon enough we're going to have to get more troops somehow? It's logical to ask these questions.

selking
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Can't move to Canada, Canada wouldn't allow it. Probably the best bet you have, wouldn't even be the gay deal... it would be trying to act insane. If they think you are a loaded firecracker ready to shoot your fellow troops then there is no way in hell they're going to send you over there. :lol:

thanks for the advice :haha:

Bacardi
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Yeah I think now selking they'll allow gays in the military. Apparently those of us homosexual aren't good enough to get married under the USA flag, but we're good enough to die for it over stupid wars.

Best bet would be, to start going to therapy now. Say some crazy shit, not quite crazy enough to get yourself sent off to the looney bin, but walk the fine line. Also the more medication or drug addiction problems you have, the better. Just trying to be helpful here. I don't want Bush to cost an entire generation it's lives.

cheesestix
Nov 5th, 2004, 12:45 AM
That email was created AFTER Bush got elected.

WRONG!

The article that I posted was written on June 15, 2004 and modified on September 29, 2004 . Bush was not re-elected until NOVEMBER 2, 2004....hell, it was just yesterday that it was official!

And THAT ARTICLE references the EXACT EMAIL (or at least the same content) that you are talking about! How could that article reference an email that was written IN THE FUTURE? :rolleyes:

Maybe YOU RECEIVED IT "after Bush was elected" (which would have been either yesterday or today) ? Or maybe it was recirculated yesterday or today? But it's been around for months.

It might not have influenced YOUR VOTE, but I imagine it scared a few people into voting Kerry.

Here's the link again:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=200

Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails
A scare story spreads electronically, but it gets facts wrong.


June 15, 2004
Modified: September 29, 2004

*roddicksinme*
Nov 5th, 2004, 01:00 AM
you shouldnt believe everything you hear/read my friend :rolleyes:

cheesestix
Nov 5th, 2004, 01:05 AM
And Cheesestix, you avoided my question. Is the military not overtaxed? If the current trend continues how can they not start a draft unless there is a sudden rise in the number of people signing up for volunteer military duty. Try to answer the correct question this time. Of course it's not Vietnam, but once again we're somewhere that we have no damn business being. So answer the question, do you see a lot of people signing up for military service every day? Don't you think that if we keep our nose over there soon enough we're going to have to get more troops somehow? It's logical to ask these questions.

Overtaxed - How would I know? I can't say yes or no either way, because I don't know. And how do YOU know? Because that's what you keep hearing from other liberals? If it's overtaxed, YOU NEED TO SHOW some figures (or non-biased articles) to support that. I don't think that you can. You're just repeating what you're hearing others say. I'm not saying that it is or isn't. But YOU are saying that it IS...so PROVE IT!

You keep acting like the military is shrinking. In your words, more people are dying than are joining. That's just false! Show me some enlistment figures to prove it. You can't. Are you trying to say that less than 1000 people (the number that died in Iraq...because that's really what you're talking about) have enlisted in the past 18 months?

I notice that NOW your only comparison to Vietnam is that "once again we're somewhere that we have no damn business being"??? :rolleyes: What does the validity (invalidity in your opinion) of a war have to do with how well or how badly it's going? There's no correlation. You compared it to Vietnam because that's what you keep hearing from other liberals. And soon you'll mention the word "quagmire", I suppose. But to compare it to Vietnam is assinine. 58K Americans died in Vietnam.

So answer the question, do you see a lot of people signing up for military service every day?

Do I see a lot of people signing up? How would I know? Do I work in a recruiting station or something? It's not something I regularly look into. I think that enlistment is HIGHER THAN YOU THINK though. But you seem to think it's so low.....so WHY DON'T YOU PROVE IT? Show me some enlistment figures.

Don't you think that if we keep our nose over there soon enough we're going to have to get more troops somehow?

You're talking like nobody is enlisting. Show me some enlistment figures.

jbone_0307
Nov 5th, 2004, 01:14 AM
I think we can all conclude, that, at the rate at which countries are pulling out their troops and Americans dying, it is inevitable to say that there wouldn't be a draft. Anybody who didn't think that was either blind or didn't want to hear it. Are forces are being stretched thin. We probably have more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, than we do here to literally protect the country. Then, with the threat of N. Korea, as the president said "bilateral talks dont work", so what do you think we are going to do?? Disarm them with force.

LeonHart
Nov 5th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Bush said he is going to finish the business in Iraq, then EVERYONE will pull out.

njguido11
Nov 5th, 2004, 02:51 AM
Isnt it ironic that the same people who think the military is the only option for poor blacks, bitch if it was forced on everyone. I do not support a draft in any way shape or form just pointing out an obvious issue

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 5th, 2004, 03:05 AM
This e-mail looks like an obvious hoax to me. I don't any notice of e-mails from sources not known to me unless they are clearly bona fide business proposals from someone reputable and checkable.

shap_half
Nov 5th, 2004, 03:29 AM
If they make me go (which better not happen) and the gay card still doesn't work, I'll be making passes at every man there is in the military. Gay, straight, bi, Thai, I don't care who you are, I'll be hitting on you, grabbing your crotch just to get out of that blasted thing called the American military.

jbone_0307
Nov 5th, 2004, 05:07 AM
Isnt it ironic that the same people who think the military is the only option for poor blacks, bitch if it was forced on everyone. I do not support a draft in any way shape or form just pointing out an obvious issue

Its not the only options poor blacks have to make it in society. They could either be a great athlete, or be smart. The military isn't for everybody, simple as that. I think they need to start training lower crimed convicts to go over there and relieve the current troops in the middle east.

jbone_0307
Nov 5th, 2004, 05:08 AM
not even to mention the entertainment business.

vogus
Nov 5th, 2004, 05:29 AM
i think that if they are going to keep going with the war, then they SHOULD have a draft. Because the Americans who are getting forced to stay in Iraq for two years at a time risking their lives every day are getting screwed, while the Americans who stay at home, driving around in their SUVs to the shopping malls and going to parties, are not doing their fair share. Either way, Bush and his people need to take a hard look at whether we can afford the huge costs of continuing to occupy Iraq.

DevilishAttitude
Nov 5th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Why is America so fucked up :confused: :sad: :rolleyes:

So happy I don't live there :D ;) :angel:

griffin
Nov 5th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Isnt it ironic that the same people who think the military is the only option for poor blacks, bitch if it was forced on everyone. I do not support a draft in any way shape or form just pointing out an obvious issue

No, some people just recognize that there's more than one way to "draft" people.

I'm always astounded at how easily people believe whatever nonsense winds up in their email boxes (especially considering how difficult it can be to get some to believe things there is evidence for, like evolution)

The military doesn't want a draft - they don't want to spend resources training unprepared and unwilling bodies.

The Hawks don't really want a draft - one of the things that swung public opinion against the Vietnam war was how many of their friends and families were being put in harms way for a war they didn't believe in. We're a lot more tolerant of people dying when they've volunteered to be there.

Tratree
Nov 5th, 2004, 04:32 PM
You guys are morons for believing this hoax. Do you not follow the news? Charlie Rangel's draft proposal was brought up in the Congress and it was voted down 402-2, which included Rangel voting against his OWN bill. No one in the Bush administration is saying draft. Build a bridge and get over it...it's not happening.