News 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.

 

[kat]

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

On the nose!

 

[loseyourname]

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.

I fail to see how any compulsory duty, including the payment of taxes, is justified. User fees should be instated instead. Look at what Robert Moses was able to achieve in the city and state of New York using almost no taxpayer dollars.

 

[Adam]

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.

Actually, the US Constitution guarantees the right of the states to have well-organised militias. It says nothing about redneck yahoos with hunting rifles and six-packs in their SUVs on the weekends.

 

[member 5645]

It seems to work for Israel.

That was on my mind. They do seem to be a very skilled military as well.

 

[member 5645]

I fail to see how any compulsory duty, including the payment of taxes, is justified. User fees should be instated instead. Look at what Robert Moses was able to achieve in the city and state of New York using almost no taxpayer dollars.

If you fail to see how being forced to pay taxes is justified, then perhaps you also agree with the reference that it is in the same bucket as burning jews?
And hence I guess all government programs are, and you are an archist?

If this is the case, then I'd rather we not continue this conversation. I simply don't see how we can have a conversation of what is right and wrong about a draft if you believe all forced activites via a state are bad.

 

[loseyourname]

If you fail to see how being forced to pay taxes is justified, then perhaps you also agree with the reference that it is in the same bucket as burning jews?
And hence I guess all government programs are, and you are an archist?

I'm not a particularly big fan of burning Jews, but I'm not sure what that has to with this. I never said that all government programs are unjustified. I said that involuntary compulsion (by any powerful entity over a powerless entity, not just by a government over its citizens) is unjustified. Perhaps this discussion really hinges on what is meant by "compulsion."

When I say that user fees are a more just means of raising money for a given project than taxes, I say that because the user of a product or service is giving consent for his money to be spent on in when he undertakes the act of using that product or service. Someone who takes the train to work should not have money taken out of his paycheck to build a highway. Robert Moses, the man I referred to earlier, managed to build up an entire network of highways and bridges and parks (New York City still has the greatest length of highway of any city in the US, despite the fact that almost nothing has been built since the end of Moses' reign) using tolls rather than taxes. The people that used the bridges and parks and highways paid for them. Furthermore, the public authorities that supervised these development projects worked exactly like corporations. If a given project went over budget or the construction was poorly done and the infrastructure failed, the authority went bankrupt and another entity took over. This seems greatly preferable to the current system we use where the government simply raises tax rates every time it messes up.

To bring this back to the topic of military service, a war that citizens are not freely willing to fight in is a war that does not have the consent of the people. Such a war is unjust. The government is set up to serve the people, and if the people do not want to fight, then the nation should not go to war.

If this is the case, then I'd rather we not continue this conversation. I simply don't see how we can have a conversation of what is right and wrong about a draft if you believe all forced activites via a state are bad.

You say that the government should force its citizens, against their will, to serve in some civic capacity. I can't see any way to justify this. If you see one, please tell me, but as of this moment, you have not given any reason for me to change my mind. Just about any career that a citizen ends up filling will exist for the purpose of providing some service to his fellow citizens. If this is not civic duty, I don't know what is. What is it that you see forcing people to do that they aren't already doing?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Actually, the US Constitution guarantees the right of the states to have well-organised militias. It says nothing about redneck yahoos with hunting rifles and six-packs in their SUVs on the weekends.

You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.

 

[loseyourname]

You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.

Hence the state militias. Citizen-organized militias were thought to better represent the will of the citizenry, and could effectively deter the federal army from turning on the people. Even if every individual is armed, without an organizational structure, they aren't going to get far when attacked by a standing army.

 

[Kerrie]

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

don't we hope

 

[olde drunk]

anything, and i mean anything that enhances the possiblity of war should be soundly decried.

look at the mess the patriot act created. not only did we lose more individual freedoms, but it allowed a war to be initiated.

we must support new legislation to begin reducing governments power. we must support any peace enhancing legislation. including, disarmament. our high degree of military strength will not stop terrorists.

understanding and helping with the worlds problems will ultimately lead to peace. let's direct our resources ($$$) toward peace. all the recent and ancient wars have not created peace. when will we learn??

preach peace.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Hence the state militias. Citizen-organized militias were thought to better represent the will of the citizenry, and could effectively deter the federal army from turning on the people. Even if every individual is armed, without an organizational structure, they aren't going to get far when attacked by a standing army.

I'm just one of many gun owners holding up his end to the Second Amendment. I'm patiently waiting for my State to form a militia.

It's estimated that between 200 to 300 million guns exist in the USA. I don't think any military in the world would want to go up against those odds militia or not.

 

[Kerrie]

look at the mess the patriot act created. not only did we lose more individual freedoms, but it allowed a war to be initiated.

we must support new legislation to begin reducing governments power. we must support any peace enhancing legislation. including, disarmament. our high degree of military strength will not stop terrorists.

ironic that we have a republican president...republicans generally are all about less government.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Although I am not necessarily in favor of a draft, some of you who think your government has no right to 'own you' for a couple of years need to stop and think what your government is actually doing for you.

1) Justice system. How'd you like to give up a fair trial and just be found guilty on the spot?
2) Currency system. How'd you like to give up money and go back to trading chickens for lumber to rebuild your barn?
3) The security that comes with our currency system. (Federally insured banks.)
4) Your voice in our elected officials.
5) Everyday things like our highway system.

I could go on and on. Now sometimes I get a little miffed that our laws restrict our freedom but that is not the fault of government. It is the fault of other people. The more densely populated a place is the fewer freedoms you will have. If we want to live in a somewhat civilized manner in densely populated areas it requires government. If you want freedom, move to the middle of nowhere.

There is not a single person born in this country who has the right to a darn thing. We for the most part are extremely lucky with what we have. As for fighting in a war that you don't believe in? I'm with you 100%. If you don't like it, there are in fact options. I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam and he said that if he had known before he went in what it would be like he would have found some way to stay out. The old saying holds true, war IS hell. I do believe though that most people could do well with a little basic training. However, that is not to say that every draftee will be sent to war. Had we had a draft of some form over the last 30 years we just might have a stronger military than we do today. A required 2 year stint and you just might decide you like it enough to stay. After all, there are people that actually volunteer for it so wouldn't it stand to reason that those same people would stay in after required basic training?

 

[Adam]

You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.

Hence the need for the STATES to have well-organised militias to protect them from the federal authority.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

LOL sovereignty.net ?? Is that your trusted news source? Here are some "headlines" from sovereignty.net:

Biodiversity Discovered

Are we facing massive extinctions, as some claim? Here is a lengthy study of biodiversity that explodes the "extinction" myth.

How Environmentalists Intend to Rule the World

Ron Arnold has analyzed a speech by Randall Hayes, President of the Rainforest Action Network, which lays out in great detail, how global greens are working to transform and control the world's economic system, in pursuit of global governance.

Looks like the rantings of Radicals to me... not surprising that they throw labels like "socialist" around as if they were credible.