i pay a lot of attention to politics, but make it a point to never preach at people about my views. However, this article got passed to me this morning and i thought id pass it around. Its the first ive heard of a draft, so id assume its the first others have heard also. its just one more reason to get out and vote this year.

www.congress.org/congress...ongressorg (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg)

The draft is a good idea.

And this means you'd vote for whom? Kerry has said that we need a lot more troops in Iraq.

Maybe Nader?

You don't think we put all those road blocks up North because of Canadian terrorists do you??? :rollin

L2 how so?

Correct me if I am wrong. but I seem to remember that you said that the way to fight terrorism is through inteligence agencies, not brute force...i.e. invading countries. Why is the draft a good idea when a more professional volunteer army is all we need? Unless we are always going to be invading countries.

Good point Mirdorr....From whatIc an gether this bill has support from both parties and a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

I am way passed the age for a draft but I must say its shit. Who the hell wants to send people to war who simply don't want to fight. We have volunteers..hell up the money paid to soldiers. They should be making double what they make already. Draft served its purpose many moons ago but technology and warfare has changes substantially.

Down with the draft.

I agree with L2, drafts are a good idea.

If the draft offers the same chance of all members of society, regardless of class or race to be called to serve that is. In which case war and its casualties and loss are felt equally by all members of the nation, not just by those who had to join the army simply because they can find no other job or see it as the only way to get higher education.

Under this scenario, foolish wars are much less likely to be fought.

Hartmut get a different account?

>Under this scenario, foolish wars are much less likely to be fought.

get a life please

and to my knowledge a draft isn't going to be going under effect until all reserves are called out

Under this scenario, foolish wars are much less likely to be fought

umm....with a much larger, forced military...you can fight many wars at once. You meant , more likely to be fought, right?

edit note: typo - god I wish I could type :rolleyes

IMO a draft army would be a mistake. The Pentagon has said it does not want one...I am not sure why it is being crammed down their throats, except as part of a political agenda.

A conscripted army is more expensive and less efficient than an all volunteer army. The so-called benefit of having the leader's and upper class offspring drafted would not occur. In any army, those with connections get the cushy assignments. So instead of having a Congressman's son or daughter in harms way, you will see them pushing paper at the Pentagon or some other stateside duty station. What you will have is *more* lower economic class kids behind the trigger, and less well trained ones at that.

When a major war requires more soldiers than can be raised voluntarily, then a draft makes sense. I don't see that happening yet.

If we need more troops for Iraq, pull them out of countries they are no longer wanted in or needed. Boost the spending for benefits, retention programs and voluntary enlistment programs. It will still be cheaper than a draft and the results will be much better.

When I turned 18 (in 1988) I had to go and register for the draft. The potential has always been there, it is just that they have decided to activate it.

This verbage: "or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security,"
allows the draft to be used both for civil service and military service. Read that again, it isn't really that alarming. In fact, the US is kind of lucky that there isn't a mandatory period of civil service as there is in some other countries.

It would be interesting if one was imposed and it was a requirement to vote, as in Starship Troopers.

This bit: "and for other purposes" is the part that makes me a bit uneasy. It is like the rider in some employment contracts that says "perform other duties as assigned". It is really far to vague. It is not impossible that someone could be drafted to perform the civil duty of mucking out the sewers in DC.


(edit) disabled smileys to fix the date

I read about this a while ago, not a surprise.

I think the draft is a good idea too, if it doesn't get better in iraq soon. And I'm 20.

Draft served its purpose many moons ago but technology and warfare has changes substantially.


There are a lot of European countries which are still drafting people, for example Germany. God knows there must be some reason for it for countries which didn't fight a war over half a century...

Otherwise where I come from the army is only sending the volunteer and professional soldiers abroad (to UN missions and to Iraq) and the drafted ones staying at home to protect the borders etc.
I guess if the US ever implemented drafting it would be the same.

The same country just cancelled mandatory service to the army (thanks, finally).

Esbat you mecca of cultural literacy :)

I've read Starship Troopers probably 100 times in the past 20 years. Such a damn good book, and he makes a lot of great suggestions.

As for that website, www.congress.org isn't www.congress.gov
Its not officially congress's website. Sure, there has been talk by a few republicans to institute the draft ... but I doubt any would actually vote for that.

Here's the Senator that introduced the bill:

hollings.senate.gov/~holl...08C06.html (http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html)

It's real, and it's planned for his next term...just as the war in Iraq was planned before his first term. Wonder what country's on his hit list next term.

It's real, and it's planned for his next term...just as the war in Iraq was planned before his first term.

Did you perhaps miss the fact that the House and Senate bills are sponsored by Democrats?

So you believe now that Democrats are trying to push this legislation through, before the presidential elections, to provide adequate troop levels for a war led by a re-elected Bush cabinet that is already planned out and ready to go in 2005?

Disagree with the legislation all you want...its not Republicans or Bush pushing it.

My guess is take a look at who's constituents would benefit most from a big boost in military expansion. Where is the gear made, where would the bases be to train draftees, who gets the contracts to administer/feed/house them. That is who is pushing for a draft.

This legislation isn't "the draft". We've had the spectre of the draft hanging over our heads longer than anyone posting here has been alive. The only thing that's been missing is the Executive Order to activate it. *edit - since Vietnam

This legislation is an expansion of the concept. Its compulsory civil service. Military service, while the most likely place for young people to end up, is not the only service they could be sent to. My own opinion is that the legislation in its current form is too vague about which services our young people will be sent to.

Personally I view this as just another form of taxation. The difference being that we'll be taxed for our time which is an irreplaceable resource as opposed to our money which can be refunded/replaced.

That doesn't automatically make it a bad idea though.

All I am saying is "Follow the Money".

So you believe now that Democrats are trying to push this legislation through, before the presidential elections, to provide adequate troop levels for a war led by a re-elected Bush cabinet that is already planned out and ready to go in 2005?


Where have you been? Hillary's been telling us all about the right wing conspiracies for years now, those democrats are just sleeper agents.

those democrats are just sleeper agents.

Oh, that's right. Rep. Rangel is so adamantly anti-Bush as part of his cover. I forgot.

Did you perhaps miss the fact that the House and Senate bills are sponsored by Democrats?

I did miss that and retract what I said...and slap myself upside the head. Thanks for pointing that out Mukas.

I disagree with instituting any kind of Military draft for our on going excursions. Expanding it to include mandatory civil service for all Americans 18-26, though not a bad idea in theory, would have monumental problems IMO. The government would have to expand phenomenally to process, police, and manage these "civil servants". I'm not for expanding government even more. It would be interesting to see if any of the increased taxes this would require would be made up by the services performed...I'm doubting it would.

Also the abuse of it could be atrocious. The bill talks about shared sacrifice, but my guess all the harsh jobs would go to those without the ability to "influence" the people doing the job placement.

A draft eh? Intresting. Well if you might be forced to join the Service, then maybe it might make sense to join them as "Volunteer" if you are of that age. At least that way you have a bit more leverage on what branch of the service you would enter, what you would be doing and what benifits you might recieve. Otherwise, its going to be mostly all 2 year stints in the Army (mostly all infantry), since they are probably the branch with the highest demand for active duty personel. The Navy is downsizing atm and the rest of the services have no problems filling most of their billets. Also, if you are being "forced" to do something, then there really isn't any need for the "employing" agency to give you benifits since it not like they have to sell it to you. Think about it.

The government would have to expand phenomenally to process, police, and manage these "civil servants".

Not at all. It could be through a process of skilled labor being given work at government rates for X years. For example, lets say you just graduated from accounting school. Instead of looking to make (and these numbers are blatantly made up) $30 an hour working in a private firm, you might be "drafted" into your first job by the IRS, helping to investigate tax fraud for $20 an hour. Depending on the nature of the work, it could even prove to be a resume builder (how many people would have experience with FBI accounting fraud or IRS tax fraud audits, for instance).

It all really depends on the nature and scope of whatever program they try to implement.

I got a better idea..clear out the prisons!

Heh, I could just see "Crips" and "Bloods" battalions. Just never use them near each other.

I got a better idea..clear out the prisons!

Chain gangs worked well in the South. No really! They did! There wasn't any corruption or anything!

And while I was in the service, the last thing I wanted next to me was someone holding a rifle who couldn't or wouldn't follow directions or obey the rules.

I suppose we could start a Criminal Division, staffed from grades e-1 to e-4 with convicted criminals. We could use as shock troops and to do the real dirty work, much like the French use their Foreign Legion. However, then we'd run into somebody with nothing better to do that point out how that is unfair and discriminatory for (whatever reason).

If they drafted you, you'd only serve for like 2 years?

My girlfriend constantly quotes exactly how much money she's worth the the army after her basic training and OIT (maybe?) and all of her other training weekends / months and its really up there. She's a Civil Affairs Specialist in the Army (I think) and only a reservist ... active duty people are worth even more.