NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republicans are planning to try and get this passed in July 2005.

This is real, if you don't believe me go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number "HR 163".

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.


(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.

(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

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'.

SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

The Republicans are planning to try and get this passed in July 2005.
I can't find the bit that exempts those who later wish to become president. Surely some mistake?

I can't find the bit that exempts those who later wish to become president. Surely some mistake?

Oh don't worry. If your parents are rich, you will automatically be exempt from seeing actual combat. Just consider it another chance to network with fellow rich kids and party. ;)

Hey wait!

Didn't the shrub say there are no plans for a draft?

You mean he *SHOCK* LIED?!@?!?!?!?

;)

Pfft it's about time the US passed a law like this. Too many people think that they owe their country only tax dollars (and some dispute even that) and a visit to a polling place once in awhile. Many countries all over the world require a year of service from their citizens, and why not? It cuts down on expenses, increases government resources, and best of all it educates the population about what government is all about: helping everyone, not just the group that you belong to.

~A US Citizen

Pfft it's about time the US passed a law like this. Too many people think that they owe their country only tax dollars (and some dispute even that) and a visit to a polling place once in awhile. Many countries all over the world require a year of service from their citizens, and why not? It cuts down on expenses, increases government resources, and best of all it educates the population about what government is all about: helping everyone, not just the group that you belong to.

~A US Citizen

How old are you?

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.

:eek: what other purposes?

I think its a good idea. We all need to be more patriotic.

How old are you?

19, do you have a point?

:eek: what other purposes?

They just aren't trying to limit themselves to purely military or homeland security concerns. It doesn't reflect any sinister intent. Instead, it implies the opposite.

Cleaning the shoes of the president... torturing prisoners... removing the dead after the nuking of Iraq.... installing proper oil production equipment so Halliburton & Co. can begin reaping the profits of their longtime humanitarian work all over the world... I can imagine a lot of things these "Other" uses can mean...

I think its a good idea. We all need to be more patriotic.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Why oh why... an American says they need to be more patriotic... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Pfft it's about time the US passed a law like this. Too many people think that they owe their country only tax dollars (and some dispute even that) and a visit to a polling place once in awhile. Many countries all over the world require a year of service from their citizens, and why not? It cuts down on expenses, increases government resources, and best of all it educates the population about what government is all about: helping everyone, not just the group that you belong to.

~A US Citizen
Fascist.

I'd like to see Canada adopt a similar strategy. A year in the military would be good for the youngin's.

Im a bit worried by your parrallel between the government and the millitary.

Fascist.

Don't be ridiculous. National service doesn't mean indoctrination, it means that for a very short period of your life you do something that will have a lasting effect on your society. It is something you can look back on and say that, despite whatever else you;ve done in your life, that for a year or two I helped people.

Anarchist.






See how stupid that kind of comment is?

Can't say I'm happy with it, but I can't say I don't see the merits of it.

I wouldn't enjoy it personally, however if drafted I definitely wouldn't dodge it (although it sure wouldn't be hard, seeing as I hold a dual citizenship).

Personally I think military service would get rid of some of the idiotic attitude some young people have in America (Well I'm basing this off of how peoplea ct in Canada, but it can't be THAT different, the culture is fairly similar). I know it sounds weird, since I'm 16, but it's true. Most have no concept of respect or loyalty, among other problems.

I'd be willing to serve in the military to further that cause :)

So basically while I'm not personally happy with the idea, if it passed I definitely wouldn't be extremely upset over it.

They just aren't trying to limit themselves to purely military or homeland security concerns. It doesn't reflect any sinister intent. Instead, it implies the opposite.

What other purposes could the military serve other than the furtherance of the national defense and homeland security. You mean like pre-emptive strikes again non-threats?

Im a bit worried by your parrallel between the government and the millitary.

This is an expansion of the selective service act, which dealt with the military. However, other national service can mean a great many things that are not military. In fact, I imagine that most of the people who served would do so in non-military areas, unless there was currently a war going on or such a war became likely.

I'm fourteen now. Suppose I turn legal age, and the draft is still in function. If they come knocking on my door, you can bet your arse I'm going to Canada. I'm not unpatriotic. I merely think that there are better ways to better one's country than to participate in any war, regardless of whether you support the war or not, unless your country TRULY needs you and is in desperate times. I am not physically fit, though in their eyes I may be. I will not be forced to fight, except to fight back against the government.

19, do you have a point?

Curiosity only.

Usually, people that are not draftable are all for the draft.

Were you planning to sign up?

Well the British National Service required people to serve for a period in one of the three branches of the armed forces. You wonder that if it was such a great thing, why did it end in Britain?

Curiosity only.

Usually, people that are not draftable are all for the draft.

Were you planning to sign up?

Close. I would qualify as "other national service" I expect, as I plan on joining the State Department when I finish up with college (I might go for a Masters so it could be awhile). However, recently I've been rethinking State. I mean I agree with State's mission, and I feel like I think alot like most of the FSOs (Foreign Service Officers), but I just can't agree with this outdated philosophy that FSOs should be moved around every 3 years to prevent them from getting too "attached" to a particular country. Also, I know that, in State, they often move people around without regard to their specialty or even what languages they speak. I'm not afraid that it would be too hard to learn several new languages in succession, but I feel it to be inefficient to only just become proficient in a country's language (and politics) and then have to move.

Why, just today I heard about a woman who was an expert in Russian studies (and spoke Russian) but was never once assigned to Russia. The closest she ever got was Ukraine, but after that 3-year posting she ended up in Hong Kong, of all places, and as an *economic* advsier, to boot (she didn't know anything about economics except for a crash 1 month course they gave her and she didn't know Chinese). Honestly, with such bizarre and possibly incompetent assigning practices I'm not surprised that State has been declining for the past few years.

Hmm... other options: I'm not entirely sure. Of course there are positions in State that don't require alot of moving around, but one of the things I look forward to the most is living in other countries and learning as much about them as possible. I guess my only real alternative would have to be the CIA, and I've certainly given that alot of thought too.

Compulsory military service is not conducive to a free society. Although I could see a need for a draft in the event of a major war, the "War on Terror" at this point, does not require drafting young Americans into military service.

If Mr. Bush would stop being such an @$$, and work with other countries (yes, even the French) he could probably build an international coalition to fight terrorism and terrorist groups around the world.

Enacting a draft would be following bad foreign policy with more bad foreign policy.

Additionally, the by drafting young Americans, eventually they'll get wind of the fact that the war in Iraq is nonsense, and that Bush has lead America in the wrong direction, and will continue to do so.

Permanent war is the state of totalitarianism. As long as a state remains in a state of "emergency," the needs of the populous can be sidestepped and ignored until the "crisis" is over. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have all indicated that this would be a long war that could be fought for decades. If we allow Bush and his administration to continue to run things, America might not be a country worth fighting for in 20 to 30 years.

Today we have the option and choice to make the right decisions. Terrorism won't ever be defeated. There will always be someone unhappy with someone, but America could work to make the world a better place. We need to think about ways to improve the standard of living in poorer countries to thwart the terrorists recruiting efforts. Happy people are hard to preach hate to.

If you support Bush and his war, sign up for the military. If you oppose him, register to vote, and encourage others to register to vote and boot Bush out in November.

There's still time for Americans to save their country from tyrrany. If Bush gets four more years, the building blocks to totalitarianism will be deeply entrenched. America will become a tool to its multinational corporations, and the people will just become ignorant stooges to the will of the Corporate States of America.

Remember freedom is earned and fought for, it's rarely if ever given.

Don't be ridiculous. National service doesn't mean indoctrination, it means that for a very short period of your life you do something that will have a lasting effect on your society. It is something you can look back on and say that, despite whatever else you;ve done in your life, that for a year or two I helped people.

Helped people. Helped a certain group of people. Helped a system whose purpose is to kill other people of other nationalities to further the nations agenda. The army is helping its nation its not helping people.

Its not exactly a big help to society, it is a big help to a country. AND here's the best part, it helps the US get even more power internationally so now WE can INVADE even MORE countries. Thats the only thing thats helping.

I'm fourteen now. Suppose I turn legal age, and the draft is still in function. If they come knocking on my door, you can bet your arse I'm going to Canada. I'm not unpatriotic. I merely think that there are better ways to better one's country than to participate in any war, regardless of whether you support the war or not, unless your country TRULY needs you and is in desperate times. I am not physically fit, though in their eyes I may be. I will not be forced to fight, except to fight back against the government.

And one of those better ways to better your country would be to betray your country and flee to another? Interesting.

Please explain your reasoning to me, I'd really like to know.

And one of those better ways to better your country would be to betray your country and flee to another? Interesting.

Please explain your reasoning to me, I'd really like to know.
It's a sad fact that respective countries brainwash its citizens. Most of us Americans think that one American life is worth the lives of 10,000 "foreigners".

If you please....

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/draft.htm

Though I am a liberal and would be firmly against any draft (as well as completely for another reason to criticize the Republicans :)), I don't think we have to worry about this one for a while.

...perform a period of military service ****or a period of civilian service****

Just because the US is in the middle of a war now doesn't mean that it always will be. This bill is not a temporary measure to increase the number of troops in Iraq, it would be a permanent aspect of US society. I expect that the bulk of people involved in national service would do so in civilian service, since outside of wartime a very large military is a massive drain on a nation's economy, whereas civilian service usually saves money rather than spends it. This piece of legislation is not about your paranoid fear of warmongering, it is about involving everyone in the nation in our government.

And one of those better ways to better your country would be to betray your country and flee to another? Interesting.

Please explain your reasoning to me, I'd really like to know.
Have you completely misinterpreted me? Yes, you have, and I know I shouldn't be talking in questions. I never did claim that fleeing to another country is a way to better it. I stated that there are better ways to serve a country than to be in its military, and if the military will still attempt to force me to serve, I will simply not do so. And, in my mind, refusal to serve in the military equates to my fleeing to another country in order to avoid conviction. I really don't care if you call me a coward, a pussy, or what-have-you. I refuse to be punished for refusal to support a cause that possibly threatens my own life. Besides, I have loved ones that'd rather not have me in jail. I refuse to fight in any war, even if it were necessary, seeing as how if I can't catch a flying object, I'm PROBABLY not fit for military action.

jesus ppl open your eyes why do you need to go on the army to show you are patriotic? In Portugal the sevice was required to all boys after they were 18 years. Luckly after some time the government opened their eyes and now it is totally volunter. It's a total waste of money in my opinion to oblige ppl to do service. money that can be used to build things not destroy.

I it just me or has anyone else noticed that ALL of the six congressmen who introduced this bill are DEMOCRATS?

<SIGH> People need to research stuff better before they post things. There have been two bills proposed, one in the senate, one in the house, both by Democrats, and neither have any chance or real intent of passing. They are more a protest about the disproportionate amount of poor and minorities in the US military.

"I'm fourteen now. Suppose I turn legal age, and the draft is still in function. If they come knocking on my door, you can bet your arse I'm going to Canada. I'm not unpatriotic. I merely think that there are better ways to better one's country than to participate in any war"

I'm sorry but the way you worded it, you definitely seem to be implying that you wouldn't want to participate because you don't think it's how you can best serve your country, but yet say you would flee to another country.

Anyways though, if you are truly as unfit physically as you say you are for military service, I think they'd realize that too :) So you really have no need to worry if you are truly as unfit as you say.

"It's a sad fact that respective countries brainwash its citizens. Most of us Americans think that one American life is worth the lives of 10,000 "foreigners"."

I can't say I disagree. Why is it that it was directed at me? I don't see how anything I said could possibly be misinterpreted to indicate that I would value 10,000 foreigners over one American?

Now on the other hand if you're asking if I would value one good person over 10,000 bad people, then I certainly would.

I it just me or has anyone else noticed that ALL of the six congressmen who introduced this bill are DEMOCRATS?

Actually I didn't, but it's rather irrelevant to what I was saying anyways.

What's this change though? I think the thread is about the draft bill itself, not a republican vs. democrat argument.

I'm fourteen now. Suppose I turn legal age, and the draft is still in function. If they come knocking on my door, you can bet your arse I'm going to Canada. I'm not unpatriotic. I merely think that there are better ways to better one's country than to participate in any war"

I'm sorry but the way you worded it, you definitely seem to be implying that you wouldn't want to participate because you don't think it's how you can best serve your country, but yet say you would flee to another country.

Anyways though, if you are truly as unfit physically as you say you are for military service, I think they'd realize that too :) So you really have no need to worry if you are truly as unfit as you say.

"It's a sad fact that respective countries brainwash its citizens. Most of us Americans think that one American life is worth the lives of 10,000 "foreigners"."

I can't say I disagree. Why is it that it was directed at me? I don't see how anything I said could possibly be misinterpreted to indicate that I would value 10,000 foreigners over one American?

Now on the other hand if you're asking if I would value one good person over 10,000 bad people, then I certainly would.
Not really directed at you... You did mention "betraying one's country" and that sort of brought that up... Since I'd bet if some US citizen created something that would benefit the world, but "betray" one's country, the sheer absurdity of the strong anti-foreigner feelings in not only in the US byut in all countries would be revealed.

Now I love my country...even if we don't know our limits and get knee deep in a shit hole (Iraq). But if I were to be put in the military...it's going to be for a pretty good reason. Not this WMD shit. Funny thing that is. We went to Iraq because they have WMDs and possible ties to terrorism...*cough* bullshit. Everyone knows we went over there to save Iraq's people right *wink*! Iran is known to have WMDs and ties to terrorism. So in essence, our dumbass president was only 1 letter off. Not that bad from someone who chokes on a pretzel. Yeah...for all you republicans out there, I used to think Bush was good til this Iraq crap. If I die, I'm gonna die for a reason, not a LIE! Like Afghanistan I'd go over there in a heartbeat if I was old enough. Good luck to all of America's troops, for if I don't supprt the war, I will always appreciate them putting their lives on the line.

I refuse to be punished for refusal to support a cause that possibly threatens my own life. Besides, I have loved ones that'd rather not have me in jail. I refuse to fight in any war, even if it were necessary, seeing as how if I can't catch a flying object, I'm PROBABLY not fit for military action.
I'm unwilling to serve if drafted, yet I am willing to take the punishment. While I would gladly die for my country, I am unwilling to kill for it. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I am liberal and against the draft, but the point is one of civic virtue. If this bill passes can we betray the trust that we have embraced so long? Either you serve, accept the consequences, or are a traitor to your country and (since you said you are liberal also) your ideals. For the record, I would be drafted before you.

"I'm fourteen now. Suppose I turn legal age, and the draft is still in function. If they come knocking on my door, you can bet your arse I'm going to Canada. I'm not unpatriotic. I merely think that there are better ways to better one's country than to participate in any war"

I'm sorry but the way you worded it, you definitely seem to be implying that you wouldn't want to participate because you don't think it's how you can best serve your country, but yet say you would flee to another country.

One must remember that what one says and one other reads are not the same thing.

Anyways though, if you are truly as unfit physically as you say you are for military service, I think they'd realize that too :) So you really have no need to worry if you are truly as unfit as you say.

My fear is that they may not accept this. I have severe self-esteem issues. I'm not going to deal with them anytime soon. I've just recognised them. I may be better off than I am, but I certainly don't see that.

Fascist.

I'm getting a little tired of people throwing that word around. Fascism is a very particular ideology, and you COULD make a case for the neocon, far-right Republicans having a lot in common with it, but that person's quote wasn't one of them. Compulsory military service is not a bad idea in and of itself. It is, however, a bad idea for the professionalism of the military, especially if it's basically a cannon-fodder creating, "we need more warm bodies to take the places of the cold ones" measure, which, in this case, it is in danger of becoming. Now, compulsory military service is also different from a draft. A draft basically makes the poor people do all the fighting and dying, while the wealthy can get deferments. Compulsory service is QUITE different, and universal. Now, having not read the full text yet - is this a draft, or compulsory service?

And to all you mookheads who keep claiming that only those who serve or follow the powers that be are patriots - shut up. Patriotism is love of the Republic and the Constitution, not the party in power or its policies. There is no greater love than one that tries to make its country better. Whereas the Republicans are trying to recreate an aristocracy. Just look at their tax and economic policies and tell me I'm wrong. Read today's Washington Post. But that is off-topic, and another long discussion entirely. My fellow Americans and others would do well not to forget the distinction between true patriotism and fanaticism.

Actually I didn't, but it's rather irrelevant to what I was saying anyways.

What's this change though? I think the thread is about the draft bill itself, not a republican vs. democrat argument.

I was responding to the Markodonia, the one who created this topic and who specifically mentioned that Republicans were trying to get this passed.

It's almost like saying don't vote for Republicans because the Republicans will do in 2005, exactly what the Democrats wanted to do in 2003.

I was responding to the Markodonia, the one who created this topic and who specifically mentioned that Republicans were trying to get this passed.

It's almost like saying don't vote for Republicans because the Republicans will do in 2005, exactly what the Democrats wanted to do in 2003.
Which makes me wonder what backdoor the repubs and their rich buddies have installed so their kinds don't have to service their country like all those poor average joes who probably got better things to do with their lives than dieing in lost wars ;)

I'm unwilling to serve if drafted, yet I am willing to take the punishment. While I would gladly die for my country, I am unwilling to kill for it. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I am liberal and against the draft, but the point is one of civic virtue. If this bill passes can we betray the trust that we have embraced so long? Either you serve, accept the consequences, or are a traitor to your country and (since you said you are liberal also) your ideals. For the record, I would be drafted before you.
What 'trust' have we embraced so long? If I must be a traitor, then so be it. How am I a traitor to my ideals? I'd like those two questions clarified first. I'm not exactly sure where you're drawing this from.

well i think we all disagree with a new draft bill. so does the us military, so i think that it's rather unlikely that this bill comes into play any time soon.

As for the Democrat vs. Republican bit, well, that just shows you how much you can't trust any poloticians to tell you what they're actually up to.

Now, i'd like to reply to a particular post:

"Don't be ridiculous. National service doesn't mean indoctrination, it means that for a very short period of your life you do something that will have a lasting effect on your society. It is something you can look back on and say that, despite whatever else you;ve done in your life, that for a year or two I helped people."

As to the National Service Doesn't Mean Indoctrination, i'd like to say that it does. they teach all combat positions to think in such a way that is beneficial to their positions: they teach Army troops that they are nothing, and that they cannot think, so that they will follow orders quickly, efficiently, and without question. They teach Air Force Pilots that they are the absolute greatest space ninja on the planet, so that when they have to make split second choices and menuvres during airial combat they will have the confidence to do so, and not question themselves.

As for the lasting posative effect on my society, i think that military is really not the route to go. I just got back from a two year mission spent among the Brazillian people. I believe that the time i spent teaching in Brazil will have a greater effect for the good of the world than the same amount of time spent as a peon in the military, in any part of the world.

it's really a value judgement, and it isn't unpatriotic to not join the military. Nor is it the best way for persons to serve their country, or their world.

Close. I would qualify as "other national service" I expect, as I plan on joining the State Department when I finish up with college (I might go for a Masters so it could be awhile). However, recently I've been rethinking State. I mean I agree with State's mission, and I feel like I think alot like most of the FSOs (Foreign Service Officers), but I just can't agree with this outdated philosophy that FSOs should be moved around every 3 years to prevent them from getting too "attached" to a particular country. Also, I know that, in State, they often move people around without regard to their specialty or even what languages they speak. I'm not afraid that it would be too hard to learn several new languages in succession, but I feel it to be inefficient to only just become proficient in a country's language (and politics) and then have to move.

Why, just today I heard about a woman who was an expert in Russian studies (and spoke Russian) but was never once assigned to Russia. The closest she ever got was Ukraine, but after that 3-year posting she ended up in Hong Kong, of all places, and as an *economic* advsier, to boot (she didn't know anything about economics except for a crash 1 month course they gave her and she didn't know Chinese). Honestly, with such bizarre and possibly incompetent assigning practices I'm not surprised that State has been declining for the past few years.

Hmm... other options: I'm not entirely sure. Of course there are positions in State that don't require alot of moving around, but one of the things I look forward to the most is living in other countries and learning as much about them as possible. I guess my only real alternative would have to be the CIA, and I've certainly given that alot of thought too.

Nothing wrong with it at all. I am ex "other national service" myself. Did various things.

My great aunts and uncles were in the state department. One met Hitler and the other was in the USSR. She said it was interesting. Each thought the other was a spy so they got along.....

Good luck on that....

Which makes me wonder what backdoor the repubs and their rich buddies have installed so their kinds don't have to service their country like all those poor average joes who probably got better things to do with their lives than dieing in lost wars ;)

Right, cause we all know there NO rich democrats who would gladly do the same for their kids.

On its face, this is a compulsory civil service bill - which is a good idea. But when you get to the regulations, it's a draft. Bastards.

What 'trust' have we embraced so long? If I must be a traitor, then so be it. How am I a traitor to my ideals? I'd like those two questions clarified first. I'm not exactly sure where you're drawing this from.
Being liberal is about, as I said before, civic virtue. If you support the ideas of higher taxes for the rich for the benefit of all, that is an example of civic virtue. The few sacrificing for the many. Social issues like gay marriage, where we support rights is an example of civic virtue. Giving rights to all so that they can be taken from none. Or accepting a law, no matter how distasteful, for the good of upholding a system where we can give such rights. While it is our duty to fight against such laws, we also need to abide by them or accept that we are wrong in not doing so and must be punished (as I have done). If you can't accept this logic, you clearly aren't liberal in truth.

That bill is officially dead by Congress rules. It is from 2003 and when the session ended the bill died.

The Army isn't going for a draft. The strength of our armed services is that everyone there is committed as they volunteered. Besides, we have enough troops and will have more available since we are reposturing deployments from Germany (that is long overdue) and other former Cold War hotspots

Being liberal is about, as I said before, civic virtue. If you support the ideas of higher taxes for the rich for the benefit of all, that is an example of civic virtue. The few sacrificing for the many. Social issues like gay marriage, where we support rights is an example of civic virtue. Giving rights to all so that they can be taken from none. Or accepting a law, no matter how distasteful, for the good of upholding a system where we can give such rights. While it is our duty to fight against such laws, we also need to abide by them or accept that we are wrong in not doing so and must be punished (as I have done). If you can't accept this logic, you clearly aren't liberal in truth.
Meh, I know this. Still, when it comes down to it, it's not going to be ME sacrificing for the many, much less many foreigners. How is fighting in a war giving rights to anyone? I don't see how my not fighting takes away rights. I AM a liberal. Not necessarily in practice but in support. I support liberal ideals, but when it comes down to it, you shouldn't rely on me. I'd likely screw you over if I had to. Jail time, much less punishment, is not an option. I do not dodge HS punishments. I've never had one, nor deserved to have one... but this is completely irrelevant. Excepting life-death situations or possible life-death situations, yes, I will give for the better good. However, I value my life. I'll do anything to protect it, and I do not accept punishment for that as valid.

A draft, hmm. I am 15 years old, and I would be about 16 if this passed. I think a draft is a terrible idea. Yeah, call me unpatriotic. I refuse to go into the military and be trained with the intent to kill another man. I believe in freedom of choice. Plus, I really don't think I'm that physically fit. I have asthma, bad enough I need to carry around an inhaler. So now basic training could even kill me. A kid died at my school yesterday because he had a severe asthma attack after he ran the mile in gym class. And he was physically fit. Don't believe me? Here's todays newspaper.... Link:
http://www.oweb.com/NewUlm/journal/home.html

Yeah... I was there. I saw him on the ground. He was basically dead at school. No pulse.

Close. I would qualify as "other national service" I expect, as I plan on joining the State Department when I finish up with college (I might go for a Masters so it could be awhile). However, recently I've been rethinking State. I mean I agree with State's mission, and I feel like I think alot like most of the FSOs (Foreign Service Officers), but I just can't agree with this outdated philosophy that FSOs should be moved around every 3 years to prevent them from getting too "attached" to a particular country. Also, I know that, in State, they often move people around without regard to their specialty or even what languages they speak. I'm not afraid that it would be too hard to learn several new languages in succession, but I feel it to be inefficient to only just become proficient in a country's language (and politics) and then have to move.

Why, just today I heard about a woman who was an expert in Russian studies (and spoke Russian) but was never once assigned to Russia. The closest she ever got was Ukraine, but after that 3-year posting she ended up in Hong Kong, of all places, and as an *economic* advsier, to boot (she didn't know anything about economics except for a crash 1 month course they gave her and she didn't know Chinese). Honestly, with such bizarre and possibly incompetent assigning practices I'm not surprised that State has been declining for the past few years.

Hmm... other options: I'm not entirely sure. Of course there are positions in State that don't require alot of moving around, but one of the things I look forward to the most is living in other countries and learning as much about them as possible. I guess my only real alternative would have to be the CIA, and I've certainly given that alot of thought too.

Being and FSO is rough. I was in to the Foreign Service, but decided to go into social work instead. Frankly, being an FSO means you're a really educated guy helping tourists who lost their passports. I encourage you to definitely get your masters so you can work in a more specialized field at State or another department if you want to work in the civil service. FSOs are basically over-educated office monkeys. And your first few years are guaranteed to be in the middle of effing nowhere. Unless, like me, you agree to serve in a "conflict" or "hazard" zone. Which basically means you agree to go somewhere you might get your ass blown off.

Note: First link. Click on the blue box.

Meh, I know this. Still, when it comes down to it, it's not going to be ME sacrificing for the many, much less many foreigners. How is fighting in a war giving rights to anyone? I don't see how my not fighting takes away rights. I AM a liberal. Not necessarily in practice but in support. I support liberal ideals, but when it comes down to it, you shouldn't rely on me. I'd likely screw you over if I had to. Jail time, much less punishment, is not an option. I do not dodge HS punishments. I've never had one, nor deserved to have one... but this is completely irrelevant. Excepting life-death situations or possible life-death situations, yes, I will give for the better good. However, I value my life. I'll do anything to protect it, and I do not accept punishment for that as valid.
The point of acquiescing is to provide support for the system which allows us to give and have freedoms. You claim to be liberal, but I'm going to guess your family simply raised you that way. And an alternative such as mine doesn't require death, merely repaying the debt to society in a different way. Besides, how much can your life mean to you. If there's an afterlife you can enjoy your moral victory and if not you're snuffed out like a candle and won't be bothered anyway. Either way it's more important to live by your morals and die in defense of them if need be.

Not really directed at you... You did mention "betraying one's country" and that sort of brought that up... Since I'd bet if some US citizen created something that would benefit the world, but "betray" one's country, the sheer absurdity of the strong anti-foreigner feelings in not only in the US byut in all countries would be revealed.

Well... I don't think if I didn't dodge a draft and thus not betray my country in that manner that many many foreigners would die as a result...

Anyways though about what you said, I think that's applicable to many countries. A strong sense of national identity exists in almost every country in the world, not just America. Most Canadians I know wouldn't be particularly upset if America ceased to exist if Canada were to benefit from it, but no one would bash Canadians for that, because Canada isn't really a top world power. I see what you're saying though.

One must remember that what one says and one other reads are not the same thing.

My fear is that they may not accept this. I have severe self-esteem issues. I'm not going to deal with them anytime soon. I've just recognised them. I may be better off than I am, but I certainly don't see that.

We'll just leave it at a misunderstanding in what you said and not bother over why, it's mostly irrelevant anyways.

I don't know about any self-esteem issue type things (I kinda have them, but not in the same sense. I have no doubts about what I can do physically, I KNOW I'm very proficient with weaponry and I have good balance and I'm fairly strong/fast, just self-esteem on things not related to physical ability), but I don't think the U.S military would want you really if you couldn't hold and fire a gun straight or run a few miles without collapsing :)

Actually I'm not even sure if I could run a few miles... if I paced myself I'm sure I could but at a fairly good speed carrying a backpack... probably not.

On its face, this is a compulsory civil service bill - which is a good idea. But when you get to the regulations, it's a draft. Bastards.

Thanks god someone here understood what I was trying to say. If I heard one more comment implying that I was glorifying one person killing another or that I agreed with the military's philosophy of destroying a person's identity.... I am not against the military nor the use of force. But I view it as only one option among many, and one of the least effective and most drastic. It should be avoided when possible and pursued diligently when impossible to avoid, but most of the time it isn't neccessary. I have read quite a bit on the pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, and while I would agree with the CIA that the intelligence seemed to indicate that Iraq had/was developing WMD, it was not a clear and present threat, and even though it might have taken more time other solutions could have revealed the flaws in our intelligence.

A compulsory period of *civil* service (although people should be allowed to opt to join the military during this period if they so choose) is a benefit to the state and to its people. Stop dragging me into your anti-war diatribes, I'm not even talking about military service.

...or run a few miles without collapsing :)

Actually I'm not even sure if I could run a few miles... if I paced myself I'm sure I could but at a fairly good speed carrying a backpack... probably not.
The thing is, I can barely run half a KILOMETRE. I get tired after running a quarter kilometre, for crying out loud.

The point of acquiescing is to provide support for the system which allows us to give and have freedoms. You claim to be liberal, but I'm going to guess your family simply raised you that way. And an alternative such as mine doesn't require death, merely repaying the debt to society in a different way. Besides, how much can your life mean to you. If there's an afterlife you can enjoy your moral victory and if not you're snuffed out like a candle and won't be bothered anyway. Either way it's more important to live by your morals and die in defense of them if need be.
Raised in what way? My family is conservative. You see, in refusing to serve the military, I don't think I have done anything wrong, and any "reparation of debt" is invalid. I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm atheist. I don't care much for suffering right before death, or even death, for death scares me—the thought of no thinking scares me, and yes, consequently, sleep scares me, which may be part of the reason I'm insomniatic. But as I am saying, I don't feel I owe my country ANYTHING for refusing to serve any draft. If they feel I do, then I will gladly take my things and head to another country.

Being and FSO is rough. I was in to the Foreign Service, but decided to go into social work instead. Frankly, being an FSO means you're a really educated guy helping tourists who lost their passports. I encourage you to definitely get your masters so you can work in a more specialized field at State or another department if you want to work in the civil service. FSOs are basically over-educated office monkeys. And your first few years are guaranteed to be in the middle of effing nowhere. Unless, like me, you agree to serve in a "conflict" or "hazard" zone. Which basically means you agree to go somewhere you might get your ass blown off.

It's not quite that simple... Most of the passport work is supposed to be taken care of by lower-level personnel. An FSO (and by this I mean Economic or Political concentration FSO) spends alot of time keeping track of a country's current events and reporting back to people in the US what the situation is like. Unfortunately, over the years FSOs have lost alot of their initiative in making suggestions as well as reporting, so I could understand why it would appear to be an almost trivial job at times.

As for hazardous assignments, I know all about that and I don't have a real problem with it. I know how the process works, you start in a crappy position then gradually move up. Alot of FSOs have a Masters BTW.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130541,00.html

Hmpf.

Kerry says we need too more divisions and the shrub says we don't need expansion.

Why the draft then? Why not kill the measure right away.

Silly me. The elections will be over by then! ;)

The Republicans are planning to try and get this passed in July 2005.



LOL!

YOU MORON! You really oughta do your homework! This bill was submitted by CHARLES B. RANGEL - A DEMOCRAT! Jim McDermott - A DEMOCRAT! John Conyers - A DEMOCRAT! Joh Lewis - A DEMOCRAT! Pete Stark - A DEMOCRAT! and Neil Abercrombie - A DEMOCRAT!!

Here is an article you should read you dufus:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Sorry, I am not one to insult, but you are too goddam ignorant to pass up.

As much as it hurts to say, yes, the Democrats were behind this one.

Politics as usual. Expect no different from either side.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130541,00.html

Hmpf.

Kerry says we need too more divisions and the shrub says we don't need expansion.

Why the draft then? Why not kill the measure right away.

Silly me. The elections will be over by then! ;)

Yep. And then we'll have a lame-duck president who can do whatever the hell he wants because he's got total job security. After the neocons in Congress get re-elected, they'll come to the American people telling us we need the draft or the US as we know it will be over.

Open your eyes America. Iraq is a MESS. Why does 40% of the nation still support this debacle? Oh right---I forgot, it's our noble mission to take out evil dictators. The world needs policing.

Dear God... But don't worry, since you'll be serving at the President's discretion no rich Republicans will actually be enlisted.

Which makes me think, with an Army staffed by poor Democrats... viva le revolution!

Dear God... But don't worry, since you'll be serving at the President's discretion no rich Republicans will actually be enlisted.

Which makes me think, with an Army staffed by poor Democrats... viva le revolution!
Think again, I'm in the process for applying for the NROTC. Why? So I can serve on and hopefully command submarines, my dream for as long as I remember. Don't give me this bull how the Navy will get it easy in any war.

The next few wars could be against China since Taiwan is declaring their independence in a few years and the Chinese leadership even today would go to war over it (just ask someone from China like Five Cilived Nations and they'll tell you). CHina has a very dangerous Navy and most of the action in any war would be fought by the US Navy's subs to stop Chinese troop movement over the Formosa Straight.

Another possiblity is North Korea. They have an older sub fleet with not very effective subs, but you never know how China will play in there. THey might loan over some subs since Kim Jong Il is close to CHinese leadership.

I honestly don't expect there to be a draft. Bush will be a lame duck, but I remind you Congress isn't and they want to get re-elected. Plus, with the revamping of deployments and us leaving the now unneeded European Cold War bases, man power won't be too great an issue so forget the draft. I also want to add that enlistment is meeting quota.

Oh, by the way, I'm what Kerry would consider a rich Republican and I'm enlisting.

I do believe that, if drafted, you don't have to be a grunt. If religious beliefs or physical shape do not allow you to be in combat, there are other thing's they'll put you into doing.

Hmmm, let's take a look at this:

HR 163 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.So far, so good. It is indeed a House bill. But wait, let's see when this bill came up...

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003So, it seems like this bill isn't exactly new. Now, if I recall correctly, back in late 2002 (right before the mid-term elections, IIRC) some high-profile Congressmen were talking about reinstating the draft. I wonder whose names will show on the bill as sponsors? Let's take a look.

Mr. RANGEL (for himself,) Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
Wait, you mean to tell me that Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) (http://www.house.gov/rangel/), Congressman "Baghdad" Jim McDermott (D-WA) (http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/), Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) (http://www.house.gov/conyers/), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) (http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/), Congressman "Pete" Stark (D-CA) (http://www.house.gov/stark/) and Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) (http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/) are the only sponsors of this bill? That's right, no other sponsors.

But wait!!! You know what I didn't see there? A single Republican! I guess we now know who wants to get us back to the days of the Draft. And just who is sponsoring a bill that would re-instate a measure that's
a. unneeded,
b. unwanted,
c. unfair, because it tends to really target the poor and minorities?
That's right! It's the Democrats!!!

LOL!

YOU MORON! You really oughta do your homework! This bill was submitted by CHARLES B. RANGEL - A DEMOCRAT! Jim McDermott - A DEMOCRAT! John Conyers - A DEMOCRAT! Joh Lewis - A DEMOCRAT! Pete Stark - A DEMOCRAT! and Neil Abercrombie - A DEMOCRAT!!

Here is an article you should read you dufus:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Sorry, I am not one to insult, but you are too goddam ignorant to pass up.
You beat me to the punch! :-)

undefinedundefined I think it should be a law. Everyone should have to help serve this country. I :) mean we live here so lets join are troops in making this world a better place for our future generations to come!!!!!!!!!

undefinedundefined I think it should be a law. Everyone should have to help serve this country. I :) mean we live here so lets join are troops in making this world a better place for our future generations to come!!!!!!!!!
Nope. The magic of the Volunteer Armed Forces resides in the fact that, since no one is obligated to serve, the quality and morale of the recruits goes up (since only those who want to serve, do.)

Nope. The magic of the Volunteer Armed Forces resides in the fact that, since no one is obligated to serve, the quality and morale of the recruits goes up (since only those who want to serve, do.)


umm yeah because no one is required to serve our country suffers every day and are youth generations are growing up with no respect for our country. people need to understand how important this country is to us.. so what better than giving them a years lesson. our country needs men and women to join the armed forces and help instead there at home watching people die for them while they think "gee better them than me " so so wrong!!!!

Oh man folks already beat me to this..but yea..Charles Rangel is a democrat..and the Democrat from my district as well. So I should know full well what he's proposing. I have faith in what he's trying to accomplish though. Especially since Rangel spent more time fighting than Kerry ever did.(Rangel was drafted into Korea.) Anyway a Draft isnt needed unless the US gets into a major war again.

Y'know, I think it's sad how glorified being a soldier is. Some soldiers deserve the glory, but they're the ones who don't want it. Anyone who wants to fight and kill people does not deserve the glory. It takes much more faith in your country to fight when it goes against everything you believe in than to fight when you want to.

Pssh. I'm not letting the government steal two years of my life. I realize that they could either force me into a boring desk job working for them or force me into combat, thereby going against everything I believe in. So if this ends up happening (probably won't, so I'm just ranting right now), I will seriously consider moving back to Scotland. I would rather be freezing and get rained on for the rest of my life than help to kill people. I don't care if they're Iraquis. Yes, they may have some radical beliefs, but innocent people are in the middle of this and they don't deserve it. "Are" (I think you mean "our", in the interest of preserving the sanctity of the English language in a crowd of fools) troops are slaughtering people.

The US government gives $400 billion per year to the Pentagon. The entire Axis of Evil combined spends $7.5 billion on their military. Versus 400 billion. Overkill? I think so. Watch this (http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436) flash video for more information on how screwed up the federal budget is.

I'm an Atheist, but I still believe in the idea of loving one's enemy. Don't wish ill on people. It's one of the most disgusting traits of humans.

The US government gives $400 billion per year to the Pentagon. The entire Axis of Evil combined spends $7.5 billion on their military. Versus 400 billion. Overkill? I think so. Watch this (http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436) flash video for more information on how screwed up the federal budget is.

The US also has an economic power about 10x greater than the axis of evil combined...whats your point? The US spends what it can afford and nothing more, nothing less. If the US cut its military anymore than frankly we'd be to weak to be a superpower for longer than 10 more years. Clinton already slashed the post-cold war military signifficantly. Besides in war, nothing is overkill. Its either you make sure your enemy is dead, or they'll make sure you are.

Its either you make sure your enemy is dead, or they'll make sure you are.
That's why it's a good idea not to start a war in the first place. The US didn't have to retaliate. It's like being the bigger person in an argument. Someone provokes you, you ignore them. That's how fights are avoided.

Did you watch the video? It doesn't sound like it. How would we be too weak to be a superpower? Countries that could be enemies are important trading partners, allies, or too weak to do anything.

First of being the bigger person doesn't usually involve M-16's and AK-47's. Or bombs for that matter....

And just to clear this up. Charlie Rangle, a New York Democrat, spearheaded the call for the draft.

Besides, the Administration has said many times that no draft will be instituted. The military is currently turning away people. There's no need.

That's why it's a good idea not to start a war in the first place. The US didn't have to retaliate. It's like being the bigger person in an argument. Someone provokes you, you ignore them. That's how fights are avoided.

Did you watch the video? It doesn't sound like it. How would we be too weak to be a superpower? Countries that could be enemies are important trading partners, allies, or too weak to do anything.

Hold on, so that is what we should be doing? Nothing? Well I think Clinton tried that...guess what, they continued anyway. There is only so much ignoring that can be done before one person finally has had enough. Appeasement and turning the other cheek only works up to a certain point before action must be taken for the good of all involved. I'm sure had we ignored the Soviet/Chinese aggression into South Korea that the dominio affect would have been a true theory. I'm sure that if people still believed after declaring war on Poland that Hitler could be trusted this world would be a much different place. I'm sure that you are just another sorry idealist who only sees a narrow spectrum, not how the real world operates..but thats your choice. As for the video, I'll watch it now, but do you honestly expect it to have an effect on me? Those things are tailored to preach to the chior...not make folks believe other viewpoints all together.

As for the video, I'll watch it now, but do you honestly expect it to have an effect on me? Those things are tailored to preach to the chior...not make folks believe other viewpoints all together.

You have a point there. I don't expect you to be open-minded.

Has anyone besides me ever wondered why a large number of liberals are college professors, teachers, and generally educated and intelligent people? I'm not saying we're all geniuses (my own history teacher can't pronounce "nuclear", just like Mr. Bush). I'm just saying it's either a strange coincidence or there's definitely something to it.

Oh yes, and in reply to Mr. Derelict, I don't care about Charlie Rangle. Many who align themselves with the Democratic party are quite conservative. Look at Kerry. That's why I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm just really really anti-Bush.

You twit Mr. RANGEL is a democrat.

You have a point there. I don't expect you to be open-minded.
Open minded like yourself?

Has anyone besides me ever wondered why a large number of liberals are college professors, teachers, and generally educated and intelligent people? I'm not saying we're all geniuses (my own history teacher can't pronounce "nuclear", just like Mr. Bush). I'm just saying it's either a strange coincidence or there's definitely something to it.
I think you mean a large number of college professors etc. are liberals. I believe there is a much larger number of liberals than professors etc.

However, I think that the liberal slant of universities and "centers of higher learning" has more to do with established mindset and outright political discrimination than what you are hinting at... conservatives are unable to hold those "educated and intelligent" jobs.

Oh yes, and in reply to Mr. Derelict, I don't care about Charlie Rangle. Many who align themselves with the Democratic party are quite conservative. Look at Kerry. That's why I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm just really really anti-Bush.
Vote for who you feel will best run the country.

The Republicans are planning to try and get this passed in July 2005.

And they're probably only waiting that long in order to get the pending agreements with Canada implemented (and, presumably, other countries as well) that are intended to prevent draft-dodging.

Sorry Folks! But I've taken my turn, including combat time. (4 years active, Grenada)
TAG! You're IT!:mp5:

Oh, and keep in mind as this goes forward, that Republicans alone cannot possibly implement it. I bet this actually gets pretty broad-based support, excepting hyperbole from the usual suspects.

Here comes another test of how "representative" our government really is.


Which makes me think, with an Army staffed by poor Democrats... viva le revolution!
Oh Yes! Please do. Please Revolt! <drools>

And they're probably only waiting that long in order to get the pending agreements with Canada implemented (and, presumably, other countries as well) that are intended to prevent draft-dodging.

Sorry Folks! But I've taken my turn, including combat time. (4 years active, Grenada)
TAG! You're IT!:mp5:

Oh, and keep in mind as this goes forward, that Republicans alone cannot possibly implement it. I bet this actually gets pretty broad-based support, excepting hyperbole from the usual suspects.

Here comes another test of how "representative" our government really is.
You missed several posts prior in this tread. It's not the Republicans that are trying this.. it's the Democrats.

After watching the video when you put it like that in such a friendly fashion it is designed to turn people after all...its one of those things where you hear how Russia only spends 5 cookies and you think: "OMG! THEY DONT SPEND THAT MUCH AT ALL!" Thats still 50 billion. And Russia aint exactly our buddy. China spends 65 billion and unless Taiwan decides it wants to be communist the Chinese are a trading partner yes, but will go to war to keep Taiwan from breaking away totally.

The axis of evil:
North Korea: 5.1 billion
Iran: 9.7 billion
Iraq: 1.3 billion Pre-GW II

Granted the US far outspends them combined, however North Korea still manages to field an army greater in size than the South Koreas(who spend more than the North do, but still have to deal with the prospect of a nuclear North seeking "reunification" by all means possible") and enough artillary to level the city of Souel within the first day or so of fighting.

Iran, also fields a large military, and well Iraq never really recovered to its status of once being the 4th largest military in the world. But generally one doesnt after getting trounced by the entire international community.

Also, the stick about the US government needing to pay for schools isnt anywhere in the US constitution, thats a power delegated to the state. If the state screws up education then it certainly is not the governments fault. New York State is a prime example of this as well. For years politicans in New York City have complained that it is the state government in far off Albany screwing the inner city children of NYC. No mention of the government (It got so bad NYC took the state to court and got a favorable ruling).

As for feeding the worlds children...16 billion to help fight AIDs in Africa ring any bells? But I suppose we have to give everyone money now...yea right...sorry I dont exactly like my tax dollars wasted on countries who the money will only get squandered by petty local warlords trying to hold their powerbase in check. The only thing I did agree with that money is searching for new alternative fuels...but then again 1/4th of a cookie is still 2.5 billion dollars spent on research....are yuo going to tell me its going to take 12.5 billion dollars to find an alternative source of fuel? How is it the military can run their R&D cheaper for new weapons systems? Which leads me to my next point.

Do you know why the military budget is 400+ billion dollars? Even though the military from 91-04 has decreased? Well this little thing called inflation takes place and it causes those numbers to get bigger. Because one dollar the year before cant buy as much as it could in this year. The navies budget alone goes into the amount of 114 billion dollars. Why? Because it takes money to keep a Nimitz class CVN on the open sea. I wont even get into the conversation about US nuclear weapons, of which I'll say we've actually been decreasing our stockpiles considerably...but hey..whatever floats your idealistic boat.

However, I think that the liberal slant of universities and "centers of higher learning" has more to do with established mindset and outright political discrimination than what you are hinting at...

I think most profs are liberal and educated due to their being one-time Hippy commune dwellers (or the "love children" therof) who dwelled in colleges getting degrees in advanced basket weaving to avoid the last draft. Vietnam was a long war & must have afforded them plenty of time for multiple degrees. :p

I think most profs are liberal and educated due to their being one-time Hippy commune dwellers (or the "love children" therof) who dwelled in colleges getting degrees in advanced basket weaving to avoid the last draft. Vietnam was a long war & must have afforded them plenty of time for multiple degrees. :p

Minus the humor of it..thats actually rather true. A lot of the alumni of major universities grew up as spoiled rich hippie children and could afford to stay out of military service all together through college defferments. Those same people now sit on alumni boards and tend to only hire professors who slant toward their view point. Now this is more or less going to change(it always does) within the next 2 decades as the current stream of college students take over on the alumni boards.

Yes, alright Lewkowski. If the name hadn't been misspelled in the post I was replying to, I wouldn't have spelt it that way.

Open minded like yourself?
You are a perceptive being, TheOneRule. There are people I know who wouldn't understand the insult in what I said there. It's very sad. I do try to be open-minded, which is why every post I've been making has caused a small amount of doubt to arise in my mind. However, I'm currently in a bad mood and therefore I am inclined toward expressing more extreme views.

Vote for who you feel will best run the country.
I would, but there are two very good reasons why I won't. Firstly, I am seventeen. Secondly, I am not an American citizen. I am a British citizen with a green card. I would if I could though.

Also, the stick about the US government needing to pay for schools isnt anywhere in the US constitution, thats a power delegated to the state.
Technically speaking, yes. However, the constitution says, in these exact words, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That kind of vagueness has, in the past, been enough to give more power to the national government. Look at FDR's widespread socioeconomic reforms.

Yes. Liberals are sometimes hippies. I like hippies. Flowers are nice. So there. Wow, that was a convincing argument.

I was responding to the Markodonia, the one who created this topic and who specifically mentioned that Republicans were trying to get this passed.

It's almost like saying don't vote for Republicans because the Republicans will do in 2005, exactly what the Democrats wanted to do in 2003.

Hey, I'm British, you Americans can make of this what you want. I was merelt stating facts.

You missed several posts prior in this tread. It's not the Republicans that are trying this.. it's the Democrats.

Hence the comment:
Oh, and keep in mind as this goes forward, that Republicans alone cannot possibly implement it. I bet this actually gets pretty broad-based support, excepting hyperbole from the usual suspects.

I knew it didn't sound right.

Technically speaking, yes. However, the constitution says, in these exact words, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That kind of vagueness has, in the past, been enough to give more power to the national government. Look at FDR's widespread socioeconomic reforms.


However if you understood anything about the US government, or local governments in general then frankly you'd know that the general vagueness would be challenged in court, and the government would lose. Why? Because when I went to school, it was under the banner of the Department of Education, for the City of New York. Which itself was subordinate to the State of New Yorks Department of Education and the New York State Board of Regents. On no level whatsoever did it fall under federal control. Nor will it ever be the Fed. Governments right to micromanage and ensure that all schools are funded the way they should. Why? Because these local school boards together hold more political clout than all the lobbyists in Washington and would scream there heads off to lose a shred of their power. As for providing money, again it isnt in the governments power to do so. While FDR did use the vagueness to promote vast socioeconomic reform, we find this economic reform hurting our country in the long run. The babyboomers and their increasing age and life expectansy will be the reason for Social Securities collapse. Not any sort of mismanagment by any party..

Of course it would be challenged. Any half-wit can see that. I'm saying that it's possible. The chance of it actually happening may be a trillion to one against, but the possibility remains.

Hey, I'm British, you Americans can make of this what you want. I was merelt stating facts.

Right...if you're gonna 'merely' state facts about the American government and its operations in the future then you at least better make sure your own facts and opinions are correct. Because you just made yourself to be the biggest ass by saying all those folks were Republican...and yet not one of them is..

Of course it would be challenged. Any half-wit can see that. I'm saying that it's possible. The chance of it actually happening may be a trillion to one against, but the possibility remains.

And unfortunately you're the kind of half wit that thinks that one in a trillion chance is on your side with the next lucky roll of the government dice. The fact of the matter is, coming from an inner city school and coming from a family of law enforcement I can honestly say that it'll take more than just money to fix the US education system across multiple states. Discipline in the classroom is to say the least lacking...and sometimes teachers just stop caring. No amount of money tossed at either one of those solutions is going to help in the slightest.

I totally concur with you about the discipline issue. I personally have vowed that once I am Supreme Empress of the Universe (you must understand that I am joking here), I will shoot most of the immature delinquents I am forced to learn with.

And unfortunately you're the kind of half wit that thinks that one in a trillion chance is on your side with the next lucky roll of the government dice.
I said no such thing. I was making a point that the Constitution is purposely vague so that changes may happen should there be an instance in which they will be allowed to happen. If you'll remember the case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, you'll see that justice is not always served, depending on what America's mood is at certain times. The Constitution is what people make of it. If there had not been willingness on all sides of government for such extensive reform in FDR's time, the government would not have gained so much power.

I totally concur with you about the discipline issue. I personally have vowed that once I am Supreme Empress of the Universe (you must understand that I am joking here), I will shoot most of the immature delinquents I am forced to learn with.

I finally agree with you on something, Oh Supreme Empress ;) However all good things must come to an end...


I said no such thing. I was making a point that the Constitution is purposely vague so that changes may happen should there be an instance in which they will be allowed to happen. If you'll remember the case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, you'll see that justice is not always served, depending on what America's mood is at certain times. The Constitution is what people make of it. If there had not been willingness on all sides of government for such extensive reform in FDR's time, the government would not have gained so much power.

Sure there was a willingness to try new things..the country was in an economic meltdown...however even in an economic meltdown the Supreme Court stepped in on multiple occassions and declared several of Roosevelts New Deal policies illegal and had them overturned, hence Roosevelt attempted one of the most unpopular things in his presidency..pack the Supreme Court with more people, more of his supporters.

Its to sad to hear so many people talking about going to canada if they are called to service. I guess im not the best example, but even though Im fairly anti-american, and very un-patriotic, I am joining the USN as a career...There is only one time I would not fight, and its a situation that wouldn't happen.

Really though, is it that big of a deal that you spend two years of your life on a military base, doing some training and mostly sitting around on your ass? You only need to be afraid when there is an actual war, and when that happens, well, why wouldn't you actually fight?

Its to sad to hear so many people talking about going to canada if they are called to service. I guess im not the best example, but even though Im fairly anti-american, and very un-patriotic, I am joining the USN as a career...There is only one time I would not fight, and its a situation that wouldn't happen.

Really though, is it that big of a deal that you spend two years of your life on a military base, doing some training and mostly sitting around on your ass? You only need to be afraid when there is an actual war, and when that happens, well, why wouldn't you actually fight?
If you dont mind my asking... what will your rating be when you join the navy? Or are you perhaps seeking a commision?

however even in an economic meltdown the Supreme Court stepped in on multiple occassions and declared several of Roosevelts New Deal policies illegal and had them overturned
A valid point. But you have to admit that FDR really did a lot more than he should have been able to do. At the time it seemed very extreme to give the government so much power. Right now, something extreme would be for the government to throw out the Constitution and turn Communist. But you never know, do you? Now, usually I'm a logical person, but it's getting late where I am and logic and sleeplessness do not mix well. The following example is improbable but not impossible.

Something cataclysmic could happen that might be worse than the Great Depression was, and the people's only choice for survival would be to give a lot of power to the government (don't ask me what this event might be, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head). In order to do that, the elastic clause of the Constitution would be put into effect. One of the most basic human instincts is survival, so naturally the people and the government will accept the power shift in the interest of staying alive.

Now, I'm not saying education will someday be controlled by the federal government through a cataclysmic event (although they are able to exert some control through categorical grants). I have said all of this to prove that the government is changeable.

And Chellis, yes it is a big deal. They're my two years, and I have rights to do with them what I wish. Drafting me would be like incarcerating me for doing nothing.

A valid point. But you have to admit that FDR really did a lot more than he should have been able to do. At the time it seemed very extreme to give the government so much power. Right now, something extreme would be for the government to throw out the Constitution and turn Communist. But you never know, do you? Now, usually I'm a logical person, but it's getting late where I am and logic and sleeplessness do not mix well. The following example is improbable but not impossible.

Something cataclysmic could happen that might be worse than the Great Depression was, and the people's only choice for survival would be to give a lot of power to the government (don't ask me what this event might be, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head). In order to do that, the elastic clause of the Constitution would be put into effect. One of the most basic human instincts is survival, so naturally the people and the government will accept the power shift in the interest of staying alive.

Now, I'm not saying education will someday be controlled by the federal government through a cataclysmic event (although they are able to exert some control through categorical grants). I have said all of this to prove that the government is changeable.

And Chellis, yes it is a big deal. They're my two years, and I have rights to do with them what I wish. Drafting me would be like incarcerating me for doing nothing.

The court had to give FDR some leeway. However you bring up a good point in an emergency things may occur which will radically alter the country. However the Supreme Court is there to ensure that such a thing would be difficult to accomplish if not make the attempt illegal outright. Also the American public itself depending upon the disaster might not want to see the constitution change to give the government broader power. I mean heck after 9/11 you had people complain about the government being able to check the library books you look at..I mean really now if a person is going to complain over that then how loud do you think the American public would complain over a complete overhaul of the system they grew up with? Some changes would fly sure, but I doubt many changing the fundamental constitution and bill of rights would get through, or help expand the Fed Governments role more into what was acceptable to the idea of the countries framers. For once I'm glad to be in a sensable non-insult ridden conversation in this area of NS. Now if only the RP porition could remained so civilized every now and then..ah well.

Some changes would fly sure, but I doubt many changing the fundamental constitution and bill of rights would get through, or help expand the Fed Governments role more into what was acceptable to the idea of the countries framers.
Yes indeed, that chance is exceedingly slim. Theoretically, though, if the world is at the point of destruction, it could still happen. Anyway, since my little theory rant has brought me to the point at which I can no longer add anything to what I'm saying, I shall probably go to bed right now.

As for this . . .For once I'm glad to be in a sensable non-insult ridden conversation in this area of NS. Now if only the RP porition could remained so civilized every now and then..ah well.
Intelligence is a marvellous thing. Once again, I concur, and my flaming passions about the government have been sufficiently quenched for the time being due to this non-asinine conversation. Thank you for providing me with amusement. And you know what? I think this debate has inadvertently made me study for my AP US Government test tomorrow. See people? Punctuate, spell correctly, think about what you're about to say, and the rewards will be endless! *shakes New York and Jersey's hand and toddles off to bed*

Yes indeed, that chance is exceedingly slim. Theoretically, though, if the world is at the point of destruction, it could still happen. Anyway, since my little theory rant has brought me to the point at which I can no longer add anything to what I'm saying, I shall probably go to bed right now.

As for this . . .
Intelligence is a marvellous thing. Once again, I concur, and my flaming passions about the government have been sufficiently quenched for the time being due to this non-asinine conversation. Thank you for providing me with amusement. And you know what? I think this debate has inadvertently made me study for my AP US Government test tomorrow. See people? Punctuate, spell correctly, think about what you're about to say, and the rewards will be endless! *shakes New York and Jersey's hand and toddles off to bed*

I concur one hundred percent. I am off to bed myself. This was going to be my last post on the matter until the next day but since we've concluded it ahead of time well then no need for it. I hope to engage you in debate again at another time. Hopefully I'll find something else to agree with you on..as slim of a chance as that may be. Hehe. Goodnight and good luck on your AP Test..thank god I'm a college student..no class on Friday. -shakes Kshitij's hand and heads off to bed as well.- Oh and I wouldnt run from a reimposed draft...seek deferment,or consenesious(sp?)objector status...merely running no longer works. The US has gotten agreements with other countries to extradite those who run from military service(you can thank the Vietnam geneation for that)

I honestly think it's sick how many people would turn tail and run when their country called on them. No, I would not be favorable to service. I've never had the desire to go into the service. I would not willingly volunteer. But if I was called, your damn right I'd go. This is my country, and if I'm needed to defend it, then defend it I shall. So many americans forget where it was they come from, or who it was they decended from. They forget that 230 years ago their great great great ....... grandfather was one of those men fighting for the right to be free. Many of them died to give us that right. Or how about those more recent such as WW1 or WW2? Every day that we walk, talk, and act freely is a day thats been given to us by them. Too many take that for granted. And in case anyone wants to know, I'm 22, so still of an age that I could get called if needed. I know many people in the service, all branches. Everytime I think about freedom, I remember that it's my friends too who are out there. If this bill is passed, then it is also likely my children would be affected, something I think about as well. All in all I think this would be something good for our country. too many kids and adults these days take everything for granted that we have, and never think to give anything back. After all, dollars don't win wars, people do.

I honestly think it's sick how many people would turn tail and run when their country called on them. No, I would not be favorable to service. I've never had the desire to go into the service. I would not willingly volunteer. But if I was called, your damn right I'd go. This is my country, and if I'm needed to defend it, then defend it I shall. So many americans forget where it was they come from, or who it was they decended from. They forget that 230 years ago their great great great ....... grandfather was one of those men fighting for the right to be free. Many of them died to give us that right. Or how about those more recent such as WW1 or WW2? Every day that we walk, talk, and act freely is a day thats been given to us by them. Too many take that for granted. And in case anyone wants to know, I'm 22, so still of an age that I could get called if needed. I know many people in the service, all branches. Everytime I think about freedom, I remember that it's my friends too who are out there. If this bill is passed, then it is also likely my children would be affected, something I think about as well. All in all I think this would be something good for our country. too many kids and adults these days take everything for granted that we have, and never think to give anything back. After all, dollars don't win wars, people do.

How about me? I never asked to be born; especially into a poor family that no matter how hard we work or struggle, or how many jobs we hold at one time we are still at the bottom of the totem pole in a dirty ghetto part of town. You think I should be gung ho about having to help kill poor people from other countries because my govt says their govt is bad?

It's not like the priveledged of this country are going to be spending their blood for whatever political cause our govt has gotten us into. They are the corporations making money off of the war and living it up with all their war profiteering.

If it looked like the govt was on the side of the poor (always trying to help them have a better life for all the blood sweat and tears we put into our daily pssant jobs) and not run by a bunch of rich assholes, I might have a different outlook.

Oh great, since the current Australian government has a bad habit of copying US ideas ... this is not good news. Hopefully they'll get voted out first!

How about me? I never asked to be born; especially into a poor family that no matter how hard we work or struggle, or how many jobs we hold at one time we are still at the bottom of the totem pole in a dirty ghetto part of town. You think I should be gung ho about having to help kill poor people from other countries because my govt says their govt is bad?

It's not like the priveledged of this country are going to be spending their blood for whatever political cause our govt has gotten us into. They are the corporations making money off of the war and living it up with all their war profiteering.

If it looked like the govt was on the side of the poor (always trying to help them have a better life for all the blood sweat and tears we put into our daily pssant jobs) and not run by a bunch of rich assholes, I might have a different outlook.

Why not pawn your computer for some rent money?

Why not pawn your computer for some rent money?


Noone would take my old ass computer. It doesn't even work. I am using my work PC while on break. Besides I dont need to pawn anything for rent money just yet although they did raise it $200.

BULLSHIT!!

This bill was submitted by Representative Charles B. Rangel (Democrat-Liberal) (http://rangel.house.gov/)

NOT a republican

I do beleive we've already covered two important factors here.

1) it was written by democrats
2) It bloody well isn't going to happen.

Quite right, Goed. Heeeey . . . I live the same place you live. That's cool. But yeah, we know it's a Democratic bill, we know it probably won't happen, but at least this topic gives everyone an excuse to argue about draft dodgers.

You have a point there. I don't expect you to be open-minded.How far do you have to open your mind before your brains fall out? I know your brains fell out, because no one can be this ignorant on purpose. Which takes us to:
Has anyone besides me ever wondered why a large number of liberals are college professors, teachers, and generally educated and intelligent people? I'm not saying we're all geniuses (my own history teacher can't pronounce "nuclear", just like Mr. Bush). I'm just saying it's either a strange coincidence or there's definitely something to it.Watch it, buster. It's one thing to be "educated," another altogether to be "intelligent." Some of the smartest folks I know never spent a day in college. However, some of the dumbest (maybe just simply criminally naive?) people I know are college-educated. Liberals (particularly those in academia) tend to fall in the criminally-naive category. This doesn't mean that ALL liberals are criminally naive, but a lot of them leave me no other option but to think they are. Take the folks at UC-Berserkley...please!

Oh yes, and in reply to Mr. Derelict, I don't care about Charlie Rangle. Many who align themselves with the Democratic party are quite conservative. Look at Kerry. That's why I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm just really really anti-Bush.Are you sure you really aren't MKULTRA in disguise? Kerry a conservative??????? What's next, Jabba the Moore a neo-con??? Put that bong down, it's clouding your vision.

Hey, I'm British, you Americans can make of this what you want. I was merelt stating facts.
Except that you forgot to research exactly who sponsored the bill. Do your homework before you make a fool of yourself.

Y'know, I think it's sad how glorified being a soldier is. Some soldiers deserve the glory, but they're the ones who don't want it. Anyone who wants to fight and kill people does not deserve the glory. It takes much more faith in your country to fight when it goes against everything you believe in than to fight when you want to.

Pssh. I'm not letting the government steal two years of my life. I realize that they could either force me into a boring desk job working for them or force me into combat, thereby going against everything I believe in. So if this ends up happening (probably won't, so I'm just ranting right now), I will seriously consider moving back to Scotland. I would rather be freezing and get rained on for the rest of my life than help to kill people. I don't care if they're Iraquis. Yes, they may have some radical beliefs, but innocent people are in the middle of this and they don't deserve it. "Are" (I think you mean "our", in the interest of preserving the sanctity of the English language in a crowd of fools) troops are slaughtering people.

The US government gives $400 billion per year to the Pentagon. The entire Axis of Evil combined spends $7.5 billion on their military. Versus 400 billion. Overkill? I think so. Watch this (http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436) flash video for more information on how screwed up the federal budget is.

I'm an Atheist, but I still believe in the idea of loving one's enemy. Don't wish ill on people. It's one of the most disgusting traits of humans.

Loving ones enemies is a foolish endeavor.

If you are not suporting a fight against people who have expressed the desire, the support, or who actually have come to harm and kill innocent Americans then you are complicit in the act. No differently than if your neighbor was lynched in their front yard and you just stood there and watched (phone in hand).

Nice moral high ground. If this country goes against everything you believe in, then why are you here? Are you a sellout? Where is your so called courage? You are not good enough to live in the US - go freeze your ass off elsewhere.

Loving ones enemies is a foolish endeavor.

agreed, but people tend to use that phrase sloppily; they don't actually love the enemy at all, they just say that because it sounds nice and aloof. they actually mean that they don't feel certain enough of their own rightness that they are prepared to kill people who disagree, and they think there is a definite possibility that the enemy might have a few good points...they don't want to think about other people wanting to kill THEM for their ideas, so they act accordingly in the hopes that others will reciprocate.


If you are not suporting a fight against people who have expressed the desire, the support, or who actually have come to harm and kill innocent Americans then you are complicit in the act. No differently than if your neighbor was lynched in their front yard and you just stood there and watched (phone in hand).


that's the problem, though...many of us don't believe the war in Iraq is being fought against the sort of people you describe. personally, i know there is a minority of people in the Arab world who really really really want to blow up Americans, but there is also about the same percentage of people IN AMERICA who want to blow up Americans. terrorism isn't localized the way this war is, and i don't think our efforts in Iraq are actually preventing any "lynching" at all; if anything, i think they increase the likelihood of such "lynchings."

if i thought that the war in Iraq would actually reduce the likelihood that Americans would be killed by terrorists then i would support it. but, to use your example, i feel like us going into Iraq is like me calling the police to come arrest somebody for a leash-law violation while my neighbor is getting lynched in his front yard.


Nice moral high ground. If this country goes against everything you believe in, then why are you here? Are you a sellout? Where is your so called courage? You are not good enough to live in the US - go freeze your ass off elsewhere.
American policy right now goes against my beliefs in several areas, and very strongly so. however, the thing i love best about America is that the best way to show my patriotism and love for this country is to stay here and express my disent when the government does something i don't believe is right. i am a patriot, and i love America, and because of that i will not hold back criticism when my nation take foolish, dangerous, or unjust actions. i will not turn tail and run to another country just because my nation makes a mistake (or two).

to say that disenters aren't welcome in America is an act of treason against the highest ideals of this country. the best and dearest virtues of this country all come from the arguments and disagreements of our population, and to try to squelch that is inherently un-American.

Are you sure you really aren't MKULTRA in disguise? Kerry a conservative??????? What's next, Jabba the Moore a neo-con??? Put that bong down, it's clouding your vision.

Kerry is quite a conservative. We in Massachusettes tried to unseat him in the senate becuase he is to convervative. At least the green party and some Democrats put together another candidate.