Draft proposal - Women get ready for your equal opportunity

[member 5645]

Draft proposal - Women get ready for your equal opportunity!

SB 89 and HR 163 are pushing for the draft and expected to come into play, if they are passed, in January 2005. I'm personally against a drafted military, only because I believe it much weaker than a volunteer service.However, if it comes, I'll be signing up Jan '05



http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.89:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:

SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

 

[jcsd]

Do you really think the bill will pass? I've been told that it's unlikely to especially in an election year.

 

[member 5645]

Do you really think the bill will pass? I've been told that it's unlikely to especially in an election year.

There's a reason it being pushed so late in the year.
I think there's a fair number of people pushing for it, and I'd give the odds 50/50 from the different things I've read.

I'm not wholly opposed to a draft at all - if it were even handed to people (no congressman sons getting out of it). Some mandatory civil duty would do a LOT of good. I'm mixed I guess.

 

[russ_watters]

It is being pushed strictly for political reasons - it'll make people think there might be a draft soon (see the other thread on the subject). The US has had an all volunteer military for a good 30 years and its likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. The only legislation needed is maybe the abolishment of the selective service system. Its just a waste of money.

 

[Njorl]

What I have heard is more likely is the calling up of the IRR. If I have it right, anyone who has ever been in the uniformed military is in the IRR. There is no time limit. While most older guys would be in no danger, if you have the skills they want, they'll probably take you.
Njorl

 

[Kerrie]

What I have heard is more likely is the calling up of the IRR. If I have it right, anyone who has ever been in the uniformed military is in the IRR. There is no time limit. While most older guys would be in no danger, if you have the skills they want, they'll probably take you.
Njorl

my fiance was in the IRR, but received his discharge papers a year ago. i believe once you are discharged, you are off the hook.

americans shouldn't be so shocked about a draft being reinstated. many countries around the world require both men and women to be in military for a couple of years. although it sounds harsh, it might be what a lot of americans need-a little boot camp.

 

[member 5645]

my fiance was in the IRR, but received his discharge papers a year ago. i believe once you are discharged, you are off the hook.

americans shouldn't be so shocked about a draft being reinstated. many countries around the world require both men and women to be in military for a couple of years. although it sounds harsh, it might be what a lot of americans need-a little boot camp.

I LOVE the idea of a mandatory draft for every citizen for 2 years after high school. 18-20 == time to your country.

 

[Evo]

There is a mandatory draft in Italy, but you can decide between military service or public service. My friend opted for public service and spent his time working at a school for the blind. You have to begin your service by your 26th birthday.

 

[member 5645]

There is a mandatory draft in Italy, but you can decide between military service or public service. My friend opted for public service and spent his time working at a school for the blind. You have to begin your service by your 26th birthday.

I love it!
Our draft allows for the same thing, albeit, it's a tougher sell for objector status here instead of a straight open choice.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

If I remember correctly, it works like this:

All soldiers have a statutory 8-year service obligation, which begins when they enter the service. (Active duty and Reservist)

Lifers (20 years in service) can retire with an annuity. These individuals are then transferred to the inactive reserves, until they reach their 30th year of service. While in the inactive reserves they can be recalled.

 

[Evo]

I love it!
Our draft allows for the same thing, albeit, it's a tougher sell for objector status here instead of a straight open choice.

I believe you have to file as an objector there also, but it's not a big deal like it is in the US.

 

[russ_watters]

If I remember correctly, it works like this:

All soldiers have a statutory 8-year service obligation, which begins when they enter the service. (Active duty and Reservist)

Lifers (20 years in service) can retire with an annuity. These individuals are then transferred to the inactive reserves, until they reach their 30th year of service. While in the inactive reserves they can be recalled.

That is correct. The 8 year time limit starts the day you enlist (so someone who is discharged after 8 years does not enter the inactive reserve).

 

[Kerrie]

That is correct. The 8 year time limit starts the day you enlist (so someone who is discharged after 8 years does not enter the inactive reserve).

and boy am i glad my fiance served his 8 years already...

seriously though, i think women should be included in the draft just as much as men nowadays. no, they may not have strengths like men to do certain tasks, but there are so many other jobs in a war they can do. if women want equal pay, equal rights, etc, then they should definitely have equal responsibilities.

 

[motai]

seriously though, i think women should be included in the draft just as much as men nowadays. no, they may not have strengths like men to do certain tasks, but there are so many other jobs in a war they can do. if women want equal pay, equal rights, etc, then they should definitely have equal responsibilities.

Just look at their accomplishments in WWII as WAACS, WOWs, WASPs, and WAVES. Working in factories producing munitions, flying supply C-47 transport planes, drove military trucks, maintained tanks (the ones who were mechanically inclined), and ship construction.

I don't think they have done frontline service though, they left that to the male soldiers.

 

[loseyourname]

A mandatory draft is a blatant violation of human rights. Civic duty is one thing, but no one should be forced to fight, especially in a war that they feel is unjust.

 

[Kerrie]

A mandatory draft is a blatant violation of human rights.

so is war...

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm Canadian so it wouldn't affect me as much. I do disagree with the draft proposal though. Contributing to the economy as a fully functioning citizen is a public service enough. I'd put the chance of the draft happening at 20%.

The draft seems like a foolish thing to reinstate. If it was put into effect the anarchy that would erupt would be interesting from a darkened perspective though.

What are the political stances on the draft from Bush and Kerry?

 

[chroot]

So let me get this straight, phatmonkey... a person should be required to fight for his/her country at age of 18, eh? People don't choose which countries they are born in; I was an American citizen at age 18, whether I liked it or not. There was no way for me to change that citizenship prior to my 18th birthday even if I had wanted to, since minors can't even sign their own paperwork.

So I'd be trapped by a government I didn't choose and forced to fight in a war I didn't agree with, perhaps losing my life in the process. This is your concept of a government doing "a lot of good" for its citizens?

That's frankly really disturbing.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I didn't even think about that chroot. That makes the draft proposal seem even more ludacris.

For those wondering about more information you might want to check out the CNN website. The general military stance on the issue is unfavorable and the pentagon disagree's with the fact the Ranger seems to think the majority isn't probably representated. In short, the proposal doesn't look like it's going to happen.

 

[loseyourname]

so is war...

And? Do you justify one injustice by creating another?

 

[Kerrie]

"And? Do you justify one injustice by creating another?"

certainly having a mandated draft truly sucks, especially with the controversial war we began. but, if in the instance a country invaded us, i think the draft would be certainly necessary. in this specific instance of the Gulf war, i believe a mandatory draft is wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

It's either wrong or it's right, Kerrie. You might say that if a foreign power invaded us, it would be necessary to perform this action that is wrong, but the action itself is still wrong. This is the conundrum with war; there really is no such thing as a moral high ground. It may the right of a nation to defend itself, but is it the right of a nation to force its citizens to fight without their consent? Does not an individual have the right not to defend himself should he so choose? You may say that we freely choose to live here and so are giving implicit consent, but this is not the case. I did not choose to be born in the United States, and should I be drafted and then decide to leave the nation, I would still be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, given that my ancestors lived on this continent 15,000 years before those of president Bush and just about every member of Congress, I question who has more of a right to be here.

 

[Kerrie]

You might say that if a foreign power invaded us, it would be necessary to perform this action that is wrong, but the action itself is still wrong.

i agree, however, regardless of what you and i think, war still happens. this is reality of the evils of humankind.

It may the right of a nation to defend itself, but is it the right of a nation to force its citizens to fight without their consent?

unfortunately our nation does not see the rights of the individual but seeks to protects itself (the nation) from being taken over by other nations. no, it is not right, however again, the reality is if the nation seeks to protect itself by whatever means.

Furthermore, given that my ancestors lived on this continent 15,000 years before those of president Bush and just about every member of Congress, I question who has more of a right to be here.

another good point (are you native american?), it's truly unfortunate our country doesn't recognize the real americans more then they do. while i do agree with everything you are saying, our government seems to have a mind of it's own in deciding what is best for us rather then the people. personally, i believe if a draft for this particular war was reinstated, there would be serious outrage. one of those situations where it has to get worse before it gets better. many americans would then turn on the government. it seems evident to me that mass public opinion does have an influence of our government.

i should clarify that my opinions stem from if america was invaded, a draft would more necessary, and possibly not as scorned because the patriotism of americans would outshine this scorn. if your home was invaded by criminals, would you fight or fly?

 

[loseyourname]

If all you're saying is that governments really do institute military drafts, then obviously I have no argument with you. It seems we both agree that they are wrong to do so.

I am part Native American.

 

[Kalimaa23]

I LOVE the idea of a mandatory draft for every citizen for 2 years after high school. 18-20 == time to your country.

By what right can a state decide over an individuals life? One could think that if they have a good case for war, a draft would not be necessary, because there would be enough volunteers for it.

Besides, it is a military fact that drafted troops perform very poorly, resulting in many innecessary casualties. So in the long rong, instating a draft when it is not absolutely needed is a negative thing for the efficiency of the armed forces.

 

[kat]

By what right can a state decide over an individuals life? One could think that if they have a good case for war, a draft would not be necessary, because there would be enough volunteers for it.

Besides, it is a military fact that drafted troops perform very poorly, resulting in many innecessary casualties. So in the long rong, instating a draft when it is not absolutely needed is a negative thing for the efficiency of the armed forces.

I agree with you Dimitri, and I don't see a big push for this from leading Republicans. In fact, I've only seen it publicly mentioned by Democrats.
Draftees would be more concerned with surviving and getting out then they would be to do their "duty", they would not be as well trained or motivated as those who are enrolled for an extended period of time. I don't disagree that both women and men should be drafted were it re-instated. That is assuming that both were held to the same standards. I disagree that women should be prevented from front line duty, if they physically meet the standards they should indeed be allowed to play the same roles as men.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I agree with you Dimitri, and I don't see a big push for this from leading Republicans. In fact, I've only seen it publicly mentioned by Democrats.

The sponsors and cosponsors of S.89 and H.R 163 are all democrats. The sponsor and 9 of the 14 cosponsors of H.R. 163 belong to the Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives-socialist all.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The sponsors and cosponsors of S.89 and H.R 163 are all democrats. The sponsor and 9 of the 14 cosponsors of H.R. 163 belong to the Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives-socialist all.

The only way there could be 9 socialists in the House of Representatives is in the fevered imagination of right wing fanatics. And in that view, Bush is a socialist too.

 

[member 5645]

So let me get this straight, phatmonkey... a person should be required to fight for his/her country at age of 18, eh? People don't choose which countries they are born in; I was an American citizen at age 18, whether I liked it or not. There was no way for me to change that citizenship prior to my 18th birthday even if I had wanted to, since minors can't even sign their own paperwork.

So I'd be trapped by a government I didn't choose and forced to fight in a war I didn't agree with, perhaps losing my life in the process. This is your concept of a government doing "a lot of good" for its citizens?

That's frankly really disturbing.

- Warren

The theory goes:
Draft has, and will, always allow objector status. Got a problem with fighting? Go do 2 years of public service domestically.
Got a problem with it? Too bad! It's part of being a citizen - just like taxes.


This is the way it was in much of Europe for the last century. I think it's fantastic.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

The only way there could be 9 socialists in the House of Representatives is in the fevered imagination of right wing fanatics. And in that view, Bush is a socialist too.

www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf56.htm - 11k
www.sovereignty.net/center/socialists.htm[/URL] - 11k
Smells like a bunch of lefties to me tovarich.

 

[member 5645]

By what right can a state decide over an individuals life? One could think that if they have a good case for war, a draft would not be necessary, because there would be enough volunteers for it.

Besides, it is a military fact that drafted troops perform very poorly, resulting in many innecessary casualties. So in the long rong, instating a draft when it is not absolutely needed is a negative thing for the efficiency of the armed forces.

Woohoo - once again. Draft == service to your country. Plenty of ways out of combat.

As for what right can a state decide over an individuals life? The answer is ANY right the individuals, as a collective, give to that state. You pay taxes because the state says so.

The poor performance of drafted troops is the only thing that bothers me, however, everything I have read is draft for a previous volunteer military. I wonder how it is for a country that has a mandatory service for all, and not just a draft at the time of war.

 

[Adam]

If the government decided to exterminate, oh, I don't know, maybe the Jews, would you still say it's civic duty, just like taxes, and the draft is just a spiffy idea?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

. I wonder how it is for a country that has a mandatory service for all, and not just a draft at the time of war.

It seems to work for Israel.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

If the government decided to exterminate, oh, I don't know, maybe the Jews, would you still say it's civic duty, just like taxes, and the draft is just a spiffy idea?

To prevent a tyrannical regime from taking power in the United States, our Constitution provides its citizens with the right to bear arms. By the way, didn't the Australia Government recently confiscate the firearms of its citizens. Seems like Hitler did something similar in the late 1930's.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The draft proposal is just a political ploy to cause support for bush's foreign policy to drop.