NationStates Jolt Archive

There were two bills submitted to the first session of the 108th Congress in 2003 to reinstate the draft, S 89 and HR 163, both of which can easily be found at thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov/), senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov), or house.gov (http://www.house.gov) using the search functions located on those sites. The submitter of HR 163 was Congressman Charles Rangel, D-New York, and the submitter of S 89 was Senator Fritz Hollings, D-South Carolina. Both bills were referred to the appropriate committees as of January 7, 2003, and neither has been acted on since. Given that, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, R-California, and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Commitee, John Warner, R-Virginia, both appear to have pidgeonholed the bills, thereby blocking them from further debate or voting.

There are several important things to note here. First, there were proposals to reinstate a draft. Second, those proposals appear defeated in committee. Third, those proposals were made by Democrats and appear to have been defeated by Republicans.

All of my data is freely available to the public and easily checked using a few quick Google searches. See for yourself, if you want.

Yes!!!!! Oh wait, that means my prophetic vision isn't prophetic anymore.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I certainly hope you're right
I don't get what's with the democrats!!
John Kerry also wants to pass a law of mandatory national service for everyone between 18 and 26

What I don't like about kerry (and bush too a lesser extent) is that their campaign ads are completely pointless. Ooh Kerry saved somebody in Vietnam, He'd make a great president!!!! I guess this is ancient history but Grant wiped the floor with Lee and he made a terrible president.

yeah the democrats the damn dirty little statists would love to force people against their will to do something like fight a war. Not to mention republicans are just playing it safe till bush is re elected (some may not be) only folks I see taking a strong stance against this are libertarians and some republicans.

check out resistthedraft.org I believe is the site very good info, I won't be signing up I'd rather sign up voluntarily.

Kerry wants to what?! Jesus america is on the road to becoming a north korea! If thats true anyway.

Kerry's plan would mirror those found in countries with manditory social service. It would necessarily require all 18-26 year olds to serve in the military, but in some aspect of service (park rangers, inner-city revitalizers, etc.). It's unfair to claim that Kerry would turn us into North Korea, unless North Korea and countries like Sweden have more in common that many of us are aware of.

As for the draft, last year Bush and the Pentagon began quietly restaffing the draft boards and appeal boards. The bills listed were put into play partly as a action against the war. Those who sponsored them made very public statements about how they would not only reinstitute the draft, but eliminate college deferrments as well as alternative service like the National Guard and Coast Guard. The idea was that, if rich power mongers could not keep their children out of the lottery, perhaps they would be more reluctant to send thousands of men and women to their death's over seas. Of course these bills were blocked by the Republicans in order to remove the pulpit from the sponsors. New legislation can be introduced at any time and the restaffing of the boards continues apace.

Those who sponsored them made very public statements about how they would not only reinstitute the draft, but eliminate college deferrments as well as alternative service like the National Guard and Coast Guard.
Don't forget, they also wanted to include women in it. Which, personally, I support (I mean, in as much as I think the draft is one of the greatest evils- make it less evil by making it less sexist) but still, I'm not voluntarily signing up...
I did hear that it was an anti-war comment. That is, that's what Gary Nolan told us when we ate dinner with him :D . (vote libertarian!) But I'd never really heard how that was a good idea. What you're saying makes sense. Assuming it doesn't backfire...I'd rather not have to leave the country.
And don't worry, I'd flee far before my number was called. And probably convince my younger brother to come with me either from 18-26 or else until the states regained their senses.
Oh, and as far as Kerry's plan. I don't like it. I don't believe in forcing your citizens to do anything, especially if it's something they don't agree with.

Those who sponsored them made very public statements about how they would not only reinstitute the draft, but eliminate college deferrments as well as alternative service like the National Guard and Coast Guard.
Don't forget, they also wanted to include women in it. Which, personally, I support (I mean, in as much as I think the draft is one of the greatest evils- make it less evil by making it less sexist) but still, I'm not voluntarily signing up...
I did hear that it was an anti-war comment. That is, that's what Gary Nolan told us when we ate dinner with him :D . (vote libertarian!) But I'd never really heard how that was a good idea. What you're saying makes sense. Assuming it doesn't backfire...I'd rather not have to leave the country.
And don't worry, I'd flee far before my number was called. And probably convince my younger brother to come with me either from 18-26 or else until the states regained their senses.
Oh, and as far as Kerry's plan. I don't like it. I don't believe in forcing your citizens to do anything, especially if it's something they don't agree with.

Ah, I couldn't remember if this was the legislation that also advocated for the inclusion of women or not. Thanks for clearing that up. While it was a nice idea, the problem is that it's been tanked in committee, as the original poster said. The other problem is that, this doesn't preclude a Repubulican backed piece of legislation being introduced at any time, say, after the November elections. Couple this with record low re-enlistment rates, falling numbers of new recruits, the recent admissions by the administration that they "miscalculated" the number of troops needed to "pacify" Iraq and BushCo's colonial aspirations (with juicy targets such as Syria, Iran and North Korea just waiting for their turn) and we're looking at a situation that will demand a draft.

As for Kerry's plan, I'm still out on it. It hasn't been fully fleshed out and I'd certainly have less problem with the government requiring a year of service in state parks or housing redevelopment, allowing young people to get experience and training as well as accomplishing much needed infrastructure repair. Manditory military service is dead wrong and the other is most likely just a pipe dream.

The draft is a violation of my civil rights, therefore, if there's a draft with women, I will not go, nor will I flee the country. I'd rather serve jail time than fight for something I do not believe in.

Couple this with record low re-enlistment rates, falling numbers of new recruits, the recent admissions by the administration that they "miscalculated" the number of troops needed to "pacify" Iraq and BushCo's colonial aspirations (with juicy targets such as Syria, Iran and North Korea just waiting for their turn) and we're looking at a situation that will demand a draft.
No kidding...it's just scary.... It's even scary to the people that would otherwise be our army! It's terrifying that we're at this point where no one will volunteer, because it looks so bad. It's leaving us with a weakened force (with a draft it'll be even worse because no one wants to be there, and no kidding, I will not serve- if I am kidnapped and sent I will not fight) and for what?
Damn...almost makes me want to vote for Kerry...at least he won't want to attack any of those places...I hope :shock:

The draft is a violation of my civil rights, therefore, if there's a draft with women, I will not go, nor will I flee the country. I'd rather serve jail time than fight for something I do not believe in.
I wouldn't serve jailtime
that's also a violation of your civil rights
the way I see it, it's not the government's place to tell you what to do, as long as you're not hurting anyone else. Especially if what they're telling you to do requires you hurting someone else! you know, or putting you at risk. I wouldn't want to be in prison for not fighting for my country....
Though I'm sure that's not so bad...not nearly as bad as hitting your mom or something...

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I personally don't believe in a draft system in any democratic nation unless and until the safety of the country is seriously threatened.
If politicians take us into wars that the majority of the population are against, the introduction of the draft is immoral. If, say, war broke out between China and Taiwan, with which America has a commitment to defend, a draft might well become necesarry.
Forgive me if I misunderstand the proposals put forward and then 'shelved' (I'm a Brit and US politics is stunningly confusing), but my guess would be that a draft would be far more likely under a re-elected Bush administration than a Kerry one. Bush, during his last term, would have nothing to lose politically. Kerry, though from my reading of this seems to have been for a draft, would.......Big time.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

The Rangel and Hollings bills are old news. They made their intention clear at the time--they figured that war would be less likely if all Americans of draft age were put at risk. The goal was not to go to war with a draft, but to avoid the war altogether. I think that this was a bad move for their side, largely because it leads to misunderstandings of the "Hey, look, Democrats support the draft" variety, and it didn't achieve their real goal.

Anyway, I do not support a draft or any kind of mandatory national service. When drafts are used at all, they should be limited to cases of extreme necessity. Iraq is not such a case. I also think that a draft is more likely under a second Bush administration, because as someone pointed out earlier, Bush would have nothing to lose, whereas Kerry would. I still think that a draft is not likely under either administration, because it would be immensely unpopular. But I know better than to underestimate what propaganda can accomplish. You can "manufacture" support for almost anything in a democracy if you have the elites on your side.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Quite. And the British Army has a little saying that goes something like 'We don't want to become a training facility for knob-heads that don't want to be here'. Our army, though comparitively small, is one of the very best and conscription would only dilute its quality.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Quite. And the British Army has a little saying that goes something like 'We don't want to become a training facility for knob-heads that don't want to be here'. Our army, though comparitively small, is one of the very best and conscription would only dilute its quality.True. I would say that the British military is, in regards to technology and training, about equal with the U.S. Except nobody comes close to us in the Navy department (gotta represent my employer).

Um, oh yeah. Conscripts have a tendency to do hard drugs, end up in the brig a lot, not get along well with their colleagues, shoot themselves in the foot, and do all kinds of other stupid shit.

First off, props to SuperHappyFun for actually looking at the WHY those congress people did what they did, instead of doing the immature "look at what the democrats did" fingerpointing. Its refreshing to see some intelligence in a political debate.

Anyway, I would not support a military draft. Ironicly, I would support mandatory job service for everyone to work at least a year in fast food and/or retail. That way, maybe they would have empathy for the people who work those jobs, and wont be such fucking assholes when an item rings up 10 cents too expensive, or the fries aren't ready in 20 seconds.

Impractical... but I can dream....

The draft is a violation of my civil rights, therefore, if there's a draft with women, I will not go, nor will I flee the country. I'd rather serve jail time than fight for something I do not believe in.

mmmm...allowing the sacrafices of our ancestors to fall to crap cause your afraid of guns...way to go

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I personally don't believe in a draft system in any democratic nation unless and until the safety of the country is seriously threatened.
If politicians take us into wars that the majority of the population are against, the introduction of the draft is immoral. If, say, war broke out between China and Taiwan, with which America has a commitment to defend, a draft might well become necesarry.
Forgive me if I misunderstand the proposals put forward and then 'shelved' (I'm a Brit and US politics is stunningly confusing), but my guess would be that a draft would be far more likely under a re-elected Bush administration than a Kerry one. Bush, during his last term, would have nothing to lose politically. Kerry, though from my reading of this seems to have been for a draft, would.......Big time.

but is it truly fair to sit back and let other people die and suffer when we could easily help them?

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Quite. And the British Army has a little saying that goes something like 'We don't want to become a training facility for knob-heads that don't want to be here'. Our army, though comparitively small, is one of the very best and conscription would only dilute its quality.

it is a great army, but it so damn small on a large scale war/occupation it'd be totally ineffectual

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but if the system is competent and the leadership good then they can fight just as well as professionals. Look at world war 2- everybody was using conscripts there. Look at modern day South Korea. Hell- look at the IDF. A lot of those soldiers don't want to be in the territories or are against Israeli actions, but does that do a damn thing to degrade the fighting ability of the IDF? No. I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

yeah, just look at WW2, they wern't the best, but pretty good

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.I think the Pentagon knows what they're talking about when they say that a draft is a bad idea right now. Think about it: if you hate your job, are you likely to do it to the best of your abilities? Hell no! You're going to hide in the stock room and have your co-worker who is a cheerleader at Anderson High show you her tits like I did when I worked at Holiday.

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

yeah, just look at WW2, they wern't the best, but pretty goodThat's because in WWII draftees were more willing to fight than they are today because it was a clear fight for the future of the world between good and evil.

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

yeah, just look at WW2, they wern't the best, but pretty goodThat's because in WWII draftees were more willing to fight than they are today because it was a clear fight for the future of the world between good and evil.

if the army has 8 weeks to convince you to fight, they could probobly get you to die for antartica

after vietnam they put alot of reasearch in on that

I certainly hope you're right
I don't get what's with the democrats!!
John Kerry also wants to pass a law of mandatory national service for everyone between 18 and 26

John Kerry is not between the ages of 18 and 26. Republicans disbanded the draft, a democrat required registration anyway. But only for certain people. National Service? How old was Monica, and was she paid for her services?

They were also fighting against other draftees, although its not like the terrorists have any great amount of training, either.

Edit : In ww2, they were fighting against other draftees for the large part.

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

yeah, just look at WW2, they wern't the best, but pretty goodThat's because in WWII draftees were more willing to fight than they are today because it was a clear fight for the future of the world between good and evil.

if the army has 8 weeks to convince you to fight, they could probobly get you to die for antartica

after vietnam they put alot of reasearch in on thatThen why are they against the draft?

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.

I think the myth that draftees make poor soldiers is just that- a myth. If poorly lead, if badly treated, they make bad soldiers, but I think that a draft now would make sense. It would free up professional units to go to Iraq while draftees could fill US obligations elsewhere.

yeah, just look at WW2, they wern't the best, but pretty goodThat's because in WWII draftees were more willing to fight than they are today because it was a clear fight for the future of the world between good and evil.

if the army has 8 weeks to convince you to fight, they could probobly get you to die for antartica

after vietnam they put alot of reasearch in on thatThen why are they against the draft?

it's not like they're still won't be reservations I'm just saying most people would see it with alot more clarity by the time they're holding a rilfe in their hands

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

Learned by republicans, not democrats. Socialism does not tolerate dissent. Kerry said he witnessed war crimes? Johnson was president.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

Learned by republicans, not democrats. Socialism does not tolerate dissent. Kerry said he witnessed war crimes? Johnson was president.By they, I meant the military.

The Rangel and Hollings bills are old news. They made their intention clear at the time--they figured that war would be less likely if all Americans of draft age were put at risk. The goal was not to go to war with a draft, but to avoid the war altogether. I think that this was a bad move for their side, largely because it leads to misunderstandings of the "Hey, look, Democrats support the draft" variety, and it didn't achieve their real goal.

Anyway, I do not support a draft or any kind of mandatory national service. When drafts are used at all, they should be limited to cases of extreme necessity. Iraq is not such a case. I also think that a draft is more likely under a second Bush administration, because as someone pointed out earlier, Bush would have nothing to lose, whereas Kerry would. I still think that a draft is not likely under either administration, because it would be immensely unpopular. But I know better than to underestimate what propaganda can accomplish. You can "manufacture" support for almost anything in a democracy if you have the elites on your side.

Bush would have more to lose than Kerry by re-instating the draft. Look what Clinton lost with Gore.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I personally don't believe in a draft system in any democratic nation unless and until the safety of the country is seriously threatened.
If politicians take us into wars that the majority of the population are against, the introduction of the draft is immoral. If, say, war broke out between China and Taiwan, with which America has a commitment to defend, a draft might well become necesarry.
Forgive me if I misunderstand the proposals put forward and then 'shelved' (I'm a Brit and US politics is stunningly confusing), but my guess would be that a draft would be far more likely under a re-elected Bush administration than a Kerry one. Bush, during his last term, would have nothing to lose politically. Kerry, though from my reading of this seems to have been for a draft, would.......Big time.

Why is a commitment to defend Taiwan valid and a commitment to serve the United States not?

If they do reinstate the draft they will have so many freakin' riots on their hands.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.

supplies were not traded with Germany, there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and the volunteering numbers are too low for what we'd like to do

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

Learned by republicans, not democrats. Socialism does not tolerate dissent. Kerry said he witnessed war crimes? Johnson was president.By they, I meant the military.


Johnson was Commander in Chief, unless you are willing to give bush a pass also which you or I can not.

If they do reinstate the draft they will have so many freakin' riots on their hands.

one shot of tear gas and they'll run

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

Learned by republicans, not democrats. Socialism does not tolerate dissent. Kerry said he witnessed war crimes? Johnson was president.By they, I meant the military.


Johnson was Commander in Chief, unless you are willing to give bush a pass also which you or I can not.What do you mean by pass?

If they do reinstate the draft they will have so many freakin' riots on their hands.

one shot of tear gas and they'll run

Not like something important like WTO or defending Canada. How does the Canadian Army feel about defending and harboring deserters of a democracy that does not compel national service?

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

I've got the life magazens from early 1941 that show hundreds if not thousands of mrachers in the cities holding incredably stupic and nieve signs (kinda like today)

Just want to clarify something. Someone said Grant wiped the floor with Lee? Sorry, but the only reason Grant was able to win was because he had far greater numbers. His whole strategy consisted of using superior forces to grind down Southern resistance, which is why the North had 90,000 more casualties than the South when everything was said and done.

Anyways, I'm eligible for the draft, and whether I support the war or not, if I am called to fight for my country then I will not run and hide, no matter what. I don't even care that I might have to finish college when I get back, I will do my duty.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

The military itself is against the draft right now, because they know that having a bunch of unwilling soldiers in the ranks causes problems (lesson they learned in 'Nam).

Learned by republicans, not democrats. Socialism does not tolerate dissent. Kerry said he witnessed war crimes? Johnson was president.By they, I meant the military.


Johnson was Commander in Chief, unless you are willing to give bush a pass also which you or I can not.What do you mean by pass?

Specifically, being personaly responsible for the actions of a bunch of deviants who abused their postion just like My Lai. I had the same training they did, my drill sargeants made certain of the implications of "fragging" before they handed us a grenade.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.

supplies were not traded with Germany, there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and the volunteering numbers are too low for what we'd like to do

Henry Ford et al. And I'm not a historian. What I learned in public school before the Teachers Union.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

Define dissenter, duh.

Just want to clarify something. Someone said Grant wiped the floor with Lee? Sorry, but the only reason Grant was able to win was because he had far greater numbers. His whole strategy consisted of using superior forces to grind down Southern resistance, which is why the North had 90,000 more casualties than the South when everything was said and done.

Anyways, I'm eligible for the draft, and whether I support the war or not, if I am called to fight for my country then I will not run and hide, no matter what. I don't even care that I might have to finish college when I get back, I will do my duty.

you could argue the same for kerry, those vietnamese civilians didn't stand much chance against a .50 cal.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

so, the peace protesters are defacto pro-iraqi

Just want to clarify something. Someone said Grant wiped the floor with Lee? Sorry, but the only reason Grant was able to win was because he had far greater numbers. His whole strategy consisted of using superior forces to grind down Southern resistance, which is why the North had 90,000 more casualties than the South when everything was said and done.

Anyways, I'm eligible for the draft, and whether I support the war or not, if I am called to fight for my country then I will not run and hide, no matter what. I don't even care that I might have to finish college when I get back, I will do my duty.

And he had a draft, hence the Irish riots of New York and the pay out of the rich Tammany not to serve.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

so, the peace protesters are defacto pro-iraqi

Nice try, but historically no. If they provide active colaboration, yes. Dissenting is not a crime, sedition and treason are. Oh, yeah before you go there , a US court decides, (only in the US) innocence only once, guilt several times.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

so, the peace protesters are defacto pro-iraqi

Nice try, but historically no. If they provide active colaboration, yes. Dissenting is not a crime, sedition and treason are. Oh, yeah before you go there , a US court decides, (only in the US) innocence only once, guilt several times.

that's why I said defacto, if the formentioned list of persons were pro-German, than the peace-protesters are pro-iraqi

Just want to clarify something. Someone said Grant wiped the floor with Lee? Sorry, but the only reason Grant was able to win was because he had far greater numbers. His whole strategy consisted of using superior forces to grind down Southern resistance, which is why the North had 90,000 more casualties than the South when everything was said and done.

Anyways, I'm eligible for the draft, and whether I support the war or not, if I am called to fight for my country then I will not run and hide, no matter what. I don't even care that I might have to finish college when I get back, I will do my duty.

you could argue the same for kerry, those vietnamese civilians didn't stand much chance against a .50 cal.

Or an AK 47.

Yeah, quite so. Many Americans were willing to be drafted, and give their factories to US temparary control. Hell, they even volunteerily followed the meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays. Americans saw the war as a clear fight between Evil and Good, Good and Evil. Americans loss their lives because Germans didn't want American supplies to reach Europe. American was Neutral, too and supplies traded with Germany as well. It was a clear fight indeed. Iraqi war, many of us were not obligated to even look there but as act of duty to the nation and pride that our soldiers are there losing lives in the country's sake.

The draft iis nonsense, a draft would be understandable if its during war when the volunteering numbers are lower than the expected amount.there was acctually alot of dissent about WW2 (protesters marched throught NYC and DC), and Before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there was almost no dissent whatsoever. WWII is my field of historical expertise.

Uh, General Lindberg, Ambassador Kennedy, Chicago Times, et al?Nazi sympathizers.

so, the peace protesters are defacto pro-iraqi

Nice try, but historically no. If they provide active colaboration, yes. Dissenting is not a crime, sedition and treason are. Oh, yeah before you go there , a US court decides, (only in the US) innocence only once, guilt several times.

that's why I said defacto, if the formentioned list of persons were pro-German, than the peace-protesters are pro-iraqi

No. There is a diffence between dissent and aiding and abetting. That is why I'm glad people like me have an overwhelming say as a potential juror, than you with a legalistic elitist omniscencs. We may let scum loose, but I won't die because of your paranoia.


The Mafia provided extreme assistance during WWII, does this mean they were anti-Itallion?

The Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddists a Hare Krishnas all have dissented against war, does that make them pro the enemy?

The Rangel and Hollings bills are old news. They made their intention clear at the time--they figured that war would be less likely if all Americans of draft age were put at risk. The goal was not to go to war with a draft, but to avoid the war altogether. I think that this was a bad move for their side, largely because it leads to misunderstandings of the "Hey, look, Democrats support the draft" variety, and it didn't achieve their real goal.

Rangel did use some of the arguments you cite, but to my knowledge, Hollings did not. In fact, here's a press release (http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html) from Holling's web site describing his reasoning -- none of which, as I see it, mentions the concept of proposing a draft to oppose a war. I suppose no one ever explained to Rangel that instating a draft to drum up opposition to a war is a bit... messed up... and does in fact, still support a draft.

The Rangel and Hollings bills are old news. They made their intention clear at the time--they figured that war would be less likely if all Americans of draft age were put at risk. The goal was not to go to war with a draft, but to avoid the war altogether. I think that this was a bad move for their side, largely because it leads to misunderstandings of the "Hey, look, Democrats support the draft" variety, and it didn't achieve their real goal.

Rangel did use some of the arguments you cite, but to my knowledge, Hollings did not. In fact, here's a press release (http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html) from Holling's web site describing his reasoning -- none of which, as I see it, mentions the concept of proposing a draft to oppose a war. I suppose no one ever explained to Rangel that instating a draft to drum up opposition to a war is a bit... messed up... and does in fact, still support a draft.

Put Rangel in context, he was instructed to do a knee jerk proposiition. I listened to him. I saw him. Been there, done that. The fact that he has not pursued the process, demonstrates it was a political tactical objective. As opposed to a strategic goal.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I personally don't believe in a draft system in any democratic nation unless and until the safety of the country is seriously threatened.
If politicians take us into wars that the majority of the population are against, the introduction of the draft is immoral. If, say, war broke out between China and Taiwan, with which America has a commitment to defend, a draft might well become necesarry.
Forgive me if I misunderstand the proposals put forward and then 'shelved' (I'm a Brit and US politics is stunningly confusing), but my guess would be that a draft would be far more likely under a re-elected Bush administration than a Kerry one. Bush, during his last term, would have nothing to lose politically. Kerry, though from my reading of this seems to have been for a draft, would.......Big time.
Dammit...I just accidentally erased everything I wrote...
Well....third time's a charm.
Kerry does not support "selective service" as the draft has been called. He supports mandatory service for all "young people" (sorry, his website does not say 18-26 though it also no longer says "mandatory" since people have been freaking out about the draft) In other words, Kerry does not support randomly selecting who gets the chance to go die- he lets us all have a shot!!
That is a bit overdramatic though, in the "detailed" plan on his website, he describes how he actually just wants to give money for college to poor kids if they'll teach other poor kids- and how he'll pay for it all out of pocket with money left to spare!!
At least that's what I got from the details:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/johnkerry_service_fact_sheet.pdf

I certainly hope you're right
I don't get what's with the democrats!!
John Kerry also wants to pass a law of mandatory national service for everyone between 18 and 26

John Kerry is not between the ages of 18 and 26. Republicans disbanded the draft, a democrat required registration anyway. But only for certain people. National Service? How old was Monica, and was she paid for her services?
What?
Anyway, no, John Kerry is not 18-26
He doesn't support himself being drafted!
And if you meant that the line about 18-26 was not John Kerry's thing, then you'll be happy to know I corrected myself. But come on...they have to be at least 18....and apparently 26 is the age by which you're supposed to be out of college (at least he gives some statistic in that detailed report about how many people were out of college by age 26...why'd he choose that number?)
Anyway...the rest of your questions I don't get...