Discussion:
bring back the DRAFT ?
(too old to reply)
Curmudgeon
2004-04-23 20:50:34 UTC
Permalink
I wonder just what might happen if both J.Kerry and G.W.Bush were asked the
very same question at some kind of Presidential debate ?

That question being "Do you now think it is time to bring back the Draft ?"

I wonder who would be in favor of it and who would be against it ?

As they are both poles apart politically how in the world could they both
agree on their answer to this question ?
Rowley
2004-04-24 02:08:33 UTC
Permalink
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.

https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp

Martin
Post by Curmudgeon
I wonder just what might happen if both J.Kerry and G.W.Bush were asked the
very same question at some kind of Presidential debate ?
That question being "Do you now think it is time to bring back the Draft ?"
I wonder who would be in favor of it and who would be against it ?
As they are both poles apart politically how in the world could they both
agree on their answer to this question ?
Seveigny
2004-04-24 03:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rowley
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.
https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp
Martin
Post by Curmudgeon
I wonder just what might happen if both J.Kerry and G.W.Bush were asked the
very same question at some kind of Presidential debate ?
That question being "Do you now think it is time to bring back the Draft ?"
I wonder who would be in favor of it and who would be against it ?
As they are both poles apart politically how in the world could they both
agree on their answer to this question ?
I got an email, from a well respected friend on this very subject. I read
the email and had some questions about the objectivity of the sources cited
in the email I'm cutting and pasting the email I received. The bills are
accurate. There have been bills, introduced in the House and the Senate on
this subject. I checked them through thomas.gov. The rest of the
information hasn't been checked through objective sources. I'm working on
that.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml

Mandatory Draft Coming-Soon

From: Sophie Lapaire <***@sun.com>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml
March 19, 2004

I rarely send a mail to a large audience, but the possibility of mandatory
drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26) starting June 15 2005, is something,
I
believe, everyone should know. This litteraly affects EVERYONE since we all
have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.

If there are children in your family, READ this.

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and
HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at
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.

Even those voters who currently support us. Actions abroad may still object
to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a
say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but 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.

Actions, actions, actions:
P 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 theycan be a powerful voice for change!

Please also write to your representatives to 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 (sss) 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 website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss 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 a permanent state of war on "terrorism"]
proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://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 all your friends

- Call the Mercury News (Newsdesk) 408-920-5000

-E-mail the SF Chronicle at: ***@sfchronicle.com

- Contact your Senators and tell them to oppose these bills.
Barbara Boxer: 415-403-0100
Diane Feinstein: 415/393-0707
Anna Eshoo: 202/225-8104
Nancy Pelosi: ***@mail.house.gov

For the full list of representatives (53) and websites, go to:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=ca

We just can't 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 their children's children.

~Cate
Alan Lichtenstein
2004-04-26 11:51:57 UTC
Permalink
( previous post snipped-follow thread )

Your post was quite informative and eye-opening. I would have thought
that the calls for a draft were merely political posturing on the part
of one Harlem congressman, in particular. Yet, your revealing that
funds have been appropriated in supportive areas leave no room to doubt
that this is definately on the front burner.

Our armed forces have long ago moved from a concept of mere manpower to
one of "smart" warfare. Technology has advanced to the point that we
now require fewer individuals than previously to fight wars. Our armed
services have met enlistment quotas for a number of years, and our
fighting men and women are now of higher intellecual caliber than in
previous eras, including Vietnam. But apparently our planners never
planned for the occupation, especially in a place where we would be
unwanted. Our troops have suffered more casualties from the occupation
than they suffered in combat against an organized armed force. While
that vindicated the establishment of a highly "lean and mean" fighting
force, we now find that we need mere bodies to serve as what amounts to,
as jailkeepers. Thus, in that venue, the draft makes sense, from a
manpower position.

Of course, there is an alternative to the draft. And that is a vast
public outcry against what in reality, is Mr. Bush's war. Our armed
forces should protect us from outside aggression; not themselves, be the
aggressors.

Alan
Joni Rathbun
2004-04-26 12:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seveigny
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and
HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at
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.
WHere's the evidence that W is "quietly trying to get these bills passed"
? Both are Democrat political posturing bills, one up since 2001.
Post by Seveigny
$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) 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 website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual
performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The SS has NOT lain dormant for decades. That's nonsense.
Post by Seveigny
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 a permanent state of war on "terrorism"]
proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Those positions were filled before 9.11 ... There has been a steady supply
of volunteers for those positions. They're appointed, trained and have
been standing by since before 9.11.

Why? Because the SS has not lain dormant as suggested. This has been
a part of its job since being reinstated *20* some years ago. Having
boards trained and available in wait is one of the things they are
responsible for.
Post by Seveigny
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://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.
Two democrats have brought bills, one as long ago as 2001. The republicans
and W have had nothing to do with it.

Current enlistments are at or above 100% of quota targets.

Personally, I think there's some over-reacting going on.
Alan Lichtenstein
2004-04-26 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joni Rathbun
Post by Seveigny
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and
HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at
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.
WHere's the evidence that W is "quietly trying to get these bills passed"
? Both are Democrat political posturing bills, one up since 2001.
Post by Seveigny
$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) 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 website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual
performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The SS has NOT lain dormant for decades. That's nonsense.
Post by Seveigny
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 a permanent state of war on "terrorism"]
proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Those positions were filled before 9.11 ... There has been a steady supply
of volunteers for those positions. They're appointed, trained and have
been standing by since before 9.11.
Why? Because the SS has not lain dormant as suggested. This has been
a part of its job since being reinstated *20* some years ago. Having
boards trained and available in wait is one of the things they are
responsible for.
Post by Seveigny
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://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.
Two democrats have brought bills, one as long ago as 2001. The republicans
and W have had nothing to do with it.
Current enlistments are at or above 100% of quota targets.
Personally, I think there's some over-reacting going on.
I'm not so sure, Joni. The bills appropriating money are too specific
for my taste. Additionally, Pentagon projections, going back to the
1970's regarding the future of how the US would fight future wars, all
pointed towards a highly technical fighting force rather than mere
"boots on the ground." The US performance in two recent wars justifies
the pentagon projections. And as you indicate, as have I, enlistment
quotas have been filled. In point of fact, some areas, particularly, in
the Navy are so competitive, that there is an actual rejection of
applicants for that training.

But Pentagon planning was for the conduct of war, not occupation. As an
occupying power, we need additional manpower, not counted on in the
downsizing of the military. Now, what is needed, are what essentially
amounts to jailers, requiring no training for highly technical combat.
Hence, the reintroduction of the draft may appear, on the surface, to
make sense.

I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

Alan
Lee
2004-04-26 14:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.
What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.
Alan Lichtenstein
2004-04-26 18:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.
What, specifically, makes you feel that way?
The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason( despite Joni's
rationalizations ) coupled with her claims of specific dates of
implimentation. In addition other bills requiring some form of national
or Military service appear to be going in that direction.
Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.
You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

Alan
Joni Rathbun
2004-04-26 21:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Lee
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.
What, specifically, makes you feel that way?
The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason
There's no evidence $20 million was added to do the board thing as
described in the email Cate received. The total ESTIMATED (not necessarily
received) was under $8 million for that function and that figure is only
slightly higher than in previous years. The entire budget is $26,100,000.
It was right at $25,000,000 during Clinton's last year in office.

The SS has NOT been sitting idle. It has been fully functioning for
over two decades. What the letter claims is being funded by an additional
$20 million has been in place for years now and there is NOOOOOO evidence
of a $20 million increase. $26,100,000 subtract $25,000,000 is $1,100,000.


( despite Joni's
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
rationalizations ) coupled with her claims of specific dates of
implimentation. In addition other bills requiring some form of national
or Military service appear to be going in that direction.
Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.
Rangel penned his bill a couple years ago and is on record regarding
his posturing... that maybe if politicians knew THEIR kids would be
drafter too, they'd give this going-to-war a little more thought.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.
They haven't. The point is pointless. It's nothing more than the one
zillionith email letter of exaggggeration and misinformation we've
ever seen....
Alan Lichtenstein
2004-04-26 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joni Rathbun
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Lee
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.
What, specifi