Author Topic: Reinstating The Draft (Read 1725 times)

VTDW · « **on:** August 30, 2004, 01:11:53 PM »

I thought you all might find this interesting.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html

and S.89
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors: (none)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Dave :-)

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2004, 01:14:09 PM »

Look who proposed it

savageT · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2004, 01:41:46 PM »

I thought it interesting that everywhere the term "reserve" is indicated the word "reverse" is substituted. Have we totally lost our ability to proof read??? I've given up on spelling correctly!

Secondly, I find it very disturbing that the sponsors wish to induct all young people between the ages of X and Y, male AND female. Now if a girl should voluntarily join the services that is all together different.

Jim

bgjohn · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2004, 01:45:53 PM »

They want to be equal, let them be equal.
JM

VTDW · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2004, 02:51:37 PM »

The last action was in June 2003 but the bill is for 03-04 and it is in the Armed Services Committee. We shall see.

Dave :-)

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2004, 02:59:15 PM »

Look at the people protesting in the streets of NY over the RNC few American Flags ,the Grappa of society,the unemployed,unproductive in society and life,a total waste--maybe a draft in only NYC is the thing.

doghouse95 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:12:40 PM »

There will not be a military draft unless there is some kind of huge emergency. If that happens, we will all be dead before they can get the new troops trained anyway.
The modern military is well educated and very well trained. They have to be computer savvy, most of their weapons systems are computer controlled.
It todays volunteer military, all of the troops are at least high school graduates. They do not want GED's, they want a diploma.
Can you picture some 8th grade drop out punk trying to run the computer fire control system on an Abrams M1A1 tank. He couldn't even read or understand the manual or the training material used in the classroom during training.
We have the best military fighting machine in the world. This is because they are well trained, well educated and smart.
Drafting undereducated underachievers will never work in todays ARMY

ironglow · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:21:50 PM »

I agree with molst here...look who's sponsoring the bill...and why!

Taking a cue from my Marine grandson;

Our military should not be a dumping ground for misfits....which many of them would be.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:23:36 PM »

Go back and read it Glow it is your buddies.

ironglow · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:28:52 PM »

Wiz;
No buddies of mine..Rangel, Stark, "Baghdad" MacDermott and Abercrombie...all leftist whackos...

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:32:39 PM »

You got it Glow

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2004, 04:44:32 PM »

Well that certainly will create a lot of new jobs!

Quote

Can you picture some 8th grade drop out punk trying to run the computer fire control system on an Abrams M1A1 tank. He couldn't even read or understand the manual or the training material used in the classroom during training.

I think they can probably find a bang up placement for him in EOD.

alsatian · « **Reply #12 on:** August 31, 2004, 03:03:04 AM »

I saw General Tommy Franks address this topic in an interview. The military does not want or need a draft, according to Franks. The cost of inducting, training, and deploying uncommitted soldiers for two year stints is prohibitive and not cost effective. The military is not pleased with the results they obtained with involunary forces. You can think of the various angles on this: misfits not good for anything, people unwilling to follow orders, people who don't pull for the whole team but only personal survival or personal comfort (not every draftee is in a front line position).

I don't know what the purpose of the draft bill is other than to stir up anti-draft sentiment and demonize George Bush. Even though Bush has nothing to do with this bill, I suppose some people could be fooled into supposing the draft is necessitated by ill considered policies.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2004, 02:22:04 PM »

The draft has been illegal since the 13th amendment to the constitution was ratified, so there's no use even talking about it.

Major · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2004, 04:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Mitch in MI

The draft has been illegal since the 13th amendment to the constitution was ratified, so there's no use even talking about it.

I believe the 13 amendment (ratified on December 6, 1865) only covers slavery and workhouses for monetary debts not the draft. The draft was used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Maybe even before that but I didn't check on that. It is up to congress to decide when to use it. Whether I like it or not, it is up to congress to act upon or throw out this bill.

There are many jobs that could be done by a draftee to free up those that have enlisted, not to mention homeland security, and other such purposes.

Mikey · « **Reply #15 on:** September 02, 2004, 02:57:23 AM »

As a veteran and former troop commander I do not want to see another draft - the military should not be a dumping ground for societal misfits. Rangel and company would love to use the military to help some of their constituency avoid jail as well as provide an economic incentive to those who might otherwise look for public assistance.

With a draft you do not get an adequate cross section of the American society, you usually wind up with more dregs than cream of the crop, and I can still remember some of the dregs I was forced to command - no thanks, I opt for an all-volunteer, intelligent, quick thinking and committed fighting force.

And I thoroughly agree with Gen Tommy Franks. Mikey.

magooch · « **Reply #16 on:** September 02, 2004, 03:54:08 AM »

When it comes to defending this country, I'll take the best of the best every time.

Doc.2/47 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 02, 2004, 04:08:44 AM »

I am also 100% against the draft.
The draft is slavery-no more no less-and slavery is the exact opposite of freedom.Use slaves to fight for freedom?Does not compute.
A wise man once wrote that societies that were forced to use slave armies in order to survive did not deserve to.I have to agree with that.

Haveing said that,I have to say that I find painting all draftees as stupid,or dregs of society,or jail bait to be highly offensive.Draftees fought as honorably and as gallently and died every bit as well as did enlistees.I fail to see where slander after the fact serves any useful purpose.

I think Kerry enlisted, didn't he?

bgjohn · « **Reply #18 on:** September 02, 2004, 04:18:03 AM »

With a draft you do not get an adequate cross section of the American society, you usually wind up with more dregs than cream of the crop, and I can still remember some of the dregs I was forced to command - no thanks, I opt for an all-volunteer, intelligent, quick thinking and committed fighting force.

WRONG !!!

When you have the draft you get exactly a cross section of society. From borderline idiots to college grads. Then they teach to the lowest level and bore the brightest. I susect you of tunnel vision. Besides why kill off just our best and brightest. Why not include a few convicts and dullards?
JM

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2004, 04:49:06 AM »

Right you are BJ,My father,Uncle,cousins and my self and that does not include my ancestors from the begining of this country were drafted.The drafty took Normandie,Iwo Jima etc.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #20 on:** September 02, 2004, 11:08:01 AM »

Quote from: Doc.2/47

I think Kerry enlisted, didn't he?

The way I heard it (no guarantees here, so don't quote me) Kerry protested his draft into the army, the draft board wasn't going to give him the rich dude free pass, so he joined the naval reserves expecting to get the GWB treatment.
Much to his surprise, he got activated before his hitch was up. Then he did his job in Vietnam (unlike Gore) while looking for a way out. Applied for a purple heart every time he got scratched in action, demanded transfer to stateside staff work after 3 ph's. When he was ready to enter politics before his release date, he told his CO that he objected to the war and wanted to be released on moral grounds.
Did I get that right?

More on topic:
The draft is every bit against the 13th amendment as every gun control law is against the 2nd. It's involuntary servitude under claim of emergency, when any true emergency (like WWII) results in plenty of volunteers. If you can't do something without enslaving your own citizens, it's time to figure out where you went wrong in deciding to do that.
The Constitutional prohibitions against certain gov't acts are PROHIBITIONS, not meaningless suggestions.

tubbythetuba · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2004, 02:36:34 PM »

The draft was hugely unpopular, but hardly against the constitution :wink: The best minds of the sixties could not get it overturned. If they do the draft again, not one deferment! Not a one. That was the problem with the old system.

Major · « **Reply #22 on:** September 02, 2004, 03:31:07 PM »

Quote from: tubbythetuba

The draft was hugely unpopular, but hardly against the constitution :wink: The best minds of the sixties could not get it overturned. If they do the draft again, not one deferment! Not a one. That was the problem with the old system.

I agree... I am sure there are many jobs any conscientious objectors can be assigned to do that will free up others that want to be a part of the solution.

ironglow · « **Reply #23 on:** September 03, 2004, 05:22:47 AM »

I stand by my statement that many in the draft would be misfits, not ALL , but many..
Misfits are not the sick, lame & lazy ....but they can be little educated or highly educated..rich or poor....irrelevant...they can still be misfits.
Yes , draft will bring a "cross section" but much of that cross section is unusable by the military.
Yes, the "drafty" performed well on D-day..but this is another day!

The drafty of WWII didn't have the dregs and offscourings of the "sickening sixties", teaching him to hate America or legitemizing the drug culture...
The drafty of the '40s didn't have Marxist college professors brainwashing young, gullible minds...

A different day indeed...

bgjohn · « **Reply #24 on:** September 03, 2004, 05:37:10 AM »

Quote from: ironglow

I stand by my statement that many in the draft would be misfits, not ALL , but many..
Misfits are not the sick, lame & lazy ....but they can be little educated or highly educated..rich or poor....irrelevant...they can still be misfits.
Yes , draft will bring a "cross section" but much of that cross section is unusable by the military.
Yes, the "drafty" performed well on D-day..but this is another day!

The drafty of WWII didn't have the dregs and offscourings of the "sickening sixties", teaching him to hate America or legitemizing the drug culture...
The drafty of the '40s didn't have Marxist college professors brainwashing young, gullible minds...

A different day indeed...

What about women? They can drive a truck, issue supplies, cook meals, do record keeping, etc, etc. They'll be in the next draft.

Misfits? We can always give them a "general" discharge. That's neither good nor bad. A "medical" is a form of "general" discharge I believe.
JM

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #25 on:** September 03, 2004, 09:52:48 AM »

Quote from: tubbythetuba

The draft was hugely unpopular, but hardly against the constitution :wink: The best minds of the sixties could not get it overturned.

Are you saying that if the Federal government takes the position that its actions are legal, and refuses to back down, that makes it legal?
If that is *NOT* what you are saying, then I don't think you've provided evidence of anything.
Conscription = slavery = involuntary service (or servitude).

(edited because I forgot to say "NOT" the first time, ooops)

bgjohn · « **Reply #26 on:** September 03, 2004, 11:32:52 AM »

Mitch you are pi$$ing into the wind.

If jousting with windmills is your bag do something about the Income tax. It was never ratified by 38 states as required to be enacted.
JM :wink:

Major · « **Reply #27 on:** September 03, 2004, 12:57:46 PM »

Quote from: bgjohn

Mitch you are pi$$ing into the wind.

If jousting with windmills is your bag do something about the Income tax. It was never ratified by 38 states as required to be enacted.
JM :wink:

Now that is something we need to get fixed. If we can get back the purse strings then all the federal pork might desolve and life would become good again, for me anyway... now that I am on a fixed income (retired).

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #28 on:** September 03, 2004, 01:09:10 PM »

Quote from: Major

If we can get back the purse strings then all the federal pork might desolve and life would become good again, for me anyway... now that I am on a fixed income retired).

I'd like to see one more amendment made to the Constitution:
All Constitutional amendments, federal legislation, executive orders, and bureaucratic regulation, enacted in the 100 years previous to this date, are hereby declared null and void.

Now that would be progress.

Major · « **Reply #29 on:** September 05, 2004, 09:23:05 AM »

Quote from: Mitch in MI

Quote from: Major
If we can get back the purse strings then all the federal pork might desolve and life would become good again, for me anyway... now that I am on a fixed income retired).

I'd like to see one more amendment made to the Constitution:
All Constitutional amendments, federal legislation, executive orders, and bureaucratic regulation, enacted in the 100 years previous to this date, are hereby declared null and void.

Now that would be progress.

That would be fun to dream about but we all know it will never happen.