Young adults: DRAFT!!!

[adrian]

As stated here (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg), we might be drafted again next year.

[pzarquon]

That page has been making the rounds again... it bears noting that the bill in question was not only introduced by primarily Democrats (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P) (including our own Rep. Abercrombie), but it has been left to gather (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00163:) dust for over a year... it's a way many bills meet their end.

A bill can be introduced to paint the Statue of Liberty neon pink. It doesn't make the action an imminent threat.

That said, if things keep going the way they're going (there are other countries left on the Axis of Evil list, after all), who knows, we might have the draft return. I dare say, though... even if our current military isn't exactly all volunteer, you're going to get a pretty different level of performance out of a mandatory service system.

[Mocha]

Heard just a tail end of someone denying that this is starting up...again. The Democrats would really win by a landslide if this came true...people would move to Canada...again! :(

[aleno]

A cousin informed me his son will be going to Iraq in Feburary. He just got out of active duty and serving time in the reserves. He's got 4 more months but they asked him to serve his country for 2 more years. He leaves for Iraq after training in Texas. It's one step closer to the draft. It's like the war in Vietnam. My oldest brother was sent over there and my second oldest brother who was getting out of the military in 6 months was then shipped there, and then there was the draft and the next brother went. Thank god it was over before I turned 18. Oldest brother was killed, next brother was injured and later died at a hospital in Japan, and the next brother has many psycological issues in his life.
I don't understand how war on foriegn soil will protect America when within the borders of our country terrorism exist. I mean people are living in fear here in America from americans. Drive by shootings, gang related violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, older people being abused by their own family members,etc...
I am very patriotic when it comes to being american but I don't see how we as americans can say we are fighting for the freedom of forigners when Americans are still fighting against discrimination, terrorism, and oppression in our own country.
Well I guess the military and politicians know whats best when it comes to freedom and democracy.

[Linkmeister]

Well I guess the military and politicians know whats best when it comes to freedom and democracy.

Um, no. They know no more than you do; they just have more power to affect policy.

It's a little early to start a Get Out the Vote thread, but I will if I have to! :)

[aleno]

Um, no. They know no more than you do; they just have more power to affect policy.

It's a little early to start a Get Out the Vote thread, but I will if I have to! :)


You're right Link.

Let me know when you start the thread. best to do it just before the voting day. Should also consider a thread to see how many are a registered voter and if not why. Just a thought.

[Mocha]

Now someone just sent me an e-mail saying that the draft bill would take affect in June 2005 and that ALL men & women ages: 18-26 would be required to sign up.
Also noted is the fact that Canada would no longer allow anyone to "dodge" the draft by moving to Canada. Some folks are concerned because it would interupt their education.
:confused:

[pzarquon]

Now someone just sent me an e-mail saying that the draft bill would take affect in June 2005 and that ALL men & women ages: 18-26 would be required to sign up.If you get any "news" via e-mail, check it out before passing it on. The message you cite sounds like the one that's been going around for a while now.

The urban legend experts at Snopes.com tpok a closer look (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp). They don't say a draft won't happen, but despite the tone of the chain letter, it's relatively unlikely. As I mentioned in the Abercrombie v. Tanonaka (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=2641) thread, the draft bill cited was actually introduced by Democrats as an anti-war statement, and has not surprisingly gone nowhere since.

[Mocha]

Thanks for the headsup answer Pzarquon! I tend to "leap" before I look...I admit it. My kids are too old to be affected but this e-mail came from several "reliable" sources that I personally know! You and a few others who are regulars on the threads are really akamai when it comes to "what is" and "what isn't"! :)

[Miulang]

I dunno. There may be some grains of truth to it. If Bush wins and stays the course, we would need to at least double the number of peeps on the ground in Iraq (what Sinseki and Franks estimated) to effect a lasting peace if we have to go it alone. The press has reported that the Pentagon in its infinite wisdom (something about trying to increase enlistment, etc. etc) has been considering reducing the time spent in the field from 1 year to possibly 9 months. I know I was taught "modern" math in high school, but how does our need for more troops in Iraq and the Pentagon's proposal to reduce active duty on the front square up? This, plus the fact that some National Guard reservists are claiming that they are basically being coerced into reupping because if they don't (and mind you, they've already served time in Iraq), they are being threatened with redeployment to that hellhole overseas?

Like I said to Karen, Iraq is not my war. This war is for the 18-28 year old men and women to realize and mobilize against.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

An update in this most bizzare chapter (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6421410) of modern politics.

The draft bill, introduced by Democrats over a year ago as a protest against the military policies of the administration, sat around for a long time. Long enough, it seems, for people to forget its origins and seize upon it in one of the most widely propagated pieces of e-mail alarmism we've seen this year.

So now everyone's worried about the draft - despite Bush's oft-repeated vow that there won't be one - and campuses are buzzing and voter rolls are suddenly growing (http://news.google.com/news?q=voter+registrations).

So now it's the Republicans pulling the draft bill out and dusting it off, working to put it on the agenda... with the specific intent to kill it.

Of course, no one expected the bill to go anywhere, let alone pass, and if the bill comes to a vote now, it'll be resoundingly smashed. (Even the authors of the bill oppose the expressed sentiment, after all.) But since its prospects were so slim, many are saying this latest action might backfire. One, it puts a generally underground rumbling back on the front page, and two, disinterested citizens will only see "Draft bill revived in House by Republicans," without understanding the history of the legislation.

Meanwhile, Rangel is certainly enjoying the opportunity to remind everyone where the bill came from:Rangel said he pushed the measure to show that the burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was falling on lower-income people who make up most of the volunteer U.S. military. He and other Democrats who opposed the invasion of Iraq 18 months ago also said they doubted Bush would have taken the country to war if members of wealthy families had been called on to fight it. "He would never have been able to say bring 'em on with other people's children," Rangel said.
I suppose killing the bill officially at least quashes the people who could point to it's "pending" status as evidence that something could be afoot. And I suppose there's some emotional satisfaction in "calling the bluff" of the Democrats. But I think the Republicans are basically stuck in a lose-lose situation here.

[Miulang]

An update in this most bizzare chapter (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6421410) of modern politics.

The draft bill, introduced by Democrats over a year ago as a protest against the military policies of the administration, sat around for a long time. Long enough, it seems, for people to forget its origins and seize upon it in one of the most widely propagated pieces of e-mail alarmism we've seen this year.

So now everyone's worried about the draft - despite Bush's oft-repeated vow that there won't be one - and campuses are buzzing and voter rolls are suddenly growing (http://news.google.com/news?q=voter+registrations).

So now it's the Republicans pulling the draft bill out and dusting it off, working to put it on the agenda... with the specific intent to kill it.

Of course, no one expected the bill to go anywhere, let alone pass, and if the bill comes to a vote now, it'll be resoundingly smashed. (Even the authors of the bill oppose the expressed sentiment, after all.) But since its prospects were so slim, many are saying this latest action might backfire. One, it puts a generally underground rumbling back on the front page, and two, disinterested citizens will only see "Draft bill revived in House by Republicans," without understanding the history of the legislation.

Meanwhile, Rangel is certainly enjoying the opportunity to remind everyone where the bill came from:
I suppose killing the bill officially at least quashes the people who could point to it's "pending" status as evidence that something could be afoot. And I suppose there's some emotional satisfaction in "calling the bluff" of the Democrats. But I think the Republicans are basically stuck in a lose-lose situation here.
Heh. How does that square with the request it appears Paul Bremer sent to the Administration about sending additional troops to Iraq immediately after the "victory" because of the increasing violence and chaos? This revelation just came out earlier today.

Miulang

[Miulang]

So now everyone's worried about the draft - despite Bush's oft-repeated vow that there won't be one - and campuses are buzzing and voter rolls are suddenly growing (http://news.google.com/news?q=voter+registrations).
If it gets the young people in this country to stop listening to their MP3s and playing their video games and start getting them concerned about their futures, I'm all for the talk of the draft. I don't want the draft reinstated, but the young people of today have to start getting involved with their government, knowing how it works and why it's important to vote. These people, like Adrian, are our future, after all! I don't want an apathetic generation taking care of me in my old age! :D

Miulang

[Konaguy]

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/3786661/detail.html

Congress Votes Down Draft Bill

POSTED: 6:03 pm HST October 5, 2004
WASHINGTON -- In Washington Tuesday the House defeated a bill, co-sponsored by Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie, to revive the military draft.

Abercrombie himself voted against the bill, which was defeated overwhelmingly.

Abercrombie said he had added his name to the bill not to push for a draft, but to promote what he called "an open, honest public discussion of the personnel crisis facing our military today."

His opponent, Republican Dalton Tanonaka, accused Abercrombie of scaring young people unnecessarily.

The vote was 402-2.

[pzarquon]

Hmm. 402-2? Who were the two?

[/url]Per the Washington Post: "Voting for the measure were Reps. [url="http://www.house.gov/murtha/"]John P. Murtha (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9479-2004Oct5.html) (D-Pa.), who long has argued the United States needs more troops in Iraq, and Fortney "Pete" Stark (http://www.house.gov/stark/) (D-Calif.), a 32-year House veteran."

I like the headline on the Washington Post piece: "GOP Brings Up Draft to Knock It Down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9479-2004Oct5.html)." Today's move is described as "one of the strangest parliamentary maneuvers in memory," as "Republicans first had to obtain a parliamentary ruling letting them bring up a bill that not a soul would claim to support."

I find it rather entertaining that a bill with no one at the helm can nonetheless be brought up and slammed down.

[Miulang]

Yeah, and the next Administration (whether it's Bush or Kerry) is still going to have to figure out how to ramp up with enough troops from a volunteer armed forces to go over to Iraq to train the locals to run their own country so we can bring all our troops home before the end of the next milennium. It ain't over until the fat lady croaks.

Miulang

[Konaguy]

Hmm. 402-2? Who were the two?


Indeed it was strange I agree. The strangest part was
Abercrombie voting against the bill he co-sponsored.

[Konaguy]

It ain't over until the fat lady croaks.


well it is over for this session of congress :)

[Miulang]

well it is over for this session of congress :)
Based on what I heard Cheney (especially) and Edwards say tonight, the young adults of this country shouldn't go out dancing in the streets yet. They still need to mobilize and vote this November 2, so that when Congress starts up again in January, the politicians will realize that the kids are not just gonna roll over and get stepped on; they will be a political power to be reckoned with, just like their parents and grandparents.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Here's a story in this morning's Star Bulletin about Abercrombie and his rationale for sponsoring and then voting against the draft bill. While at first blush it didn't appear to make sense, I think if you read this article, you'll also come to the conclusion that young people still have to worry about possibly being conscripted in the future, maybe not on a war front, but definitely into some kind of national service.

Miulang

More here: http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/06/news/index5.html

[Miulang]

To all you young whippersnappers (men and women) :) between the ages of 18-28, please disavow yourself of both Dubya's and Kerry's "promise" that there will be no draft reinstated. There more than likely will have to be a draft of some kind in your near future. More and more stories are coming out now almost daily about how understaffed and underequipped our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question for you all, as you cast your votes on Nov. 2 is: which one of those men would you rather have as your Commander-in-Chief?

This story is from the NY Times, which as everyone knows endorsed Kerry for President this past week. The Bush Administration has been on the warpath and doing whatever it can to subvert and distort issues that the NYTimes has reported; in other words, where other Administrations have benignly allowed the press to publicly voice its opinions, over the last 3 years, every attempt has been made to stifle independent reporting. So caveat emptor as you read this article, but I think the Times states the facts clearly and irrefutably: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004D.shtml

Miulang

[Miulang]

This is an important thing for young people to remember as they vote on Nov. 2: despite assurances from the candidates of both parties, do not believe that you are not in jeopardy of being drafted.

People in their 40s and 50s are now being reactivated and called up to serve in Iraq and Iran (in other words, some of your parents) because the numbers of younger volunteers in the regular Army are about 45% of where the Army needs it to be in order to maintain a strong volunteer Army. There is also a plan in place to conscript as many medical personnel (no age ceiling here) as required to support the increased numbers of troops.

So again, who would you rather have as Commander-in-Chief? Bush or Kerry?

More here: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/109798906786681.xml

Miulang

[Miulang]

Here are a few more reasons why I think that the longer the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, the more likely a draft will have to be reinstated :( :

http://www.infobeat.com/index.cfm?action=article&id=1088458

Miulang

[adrian]

http://www.applepics.com/5/userfiles/416c1fca67f5b.gif

I guess the only thing saving me from the draft, is school or my obesity. Who'd want a 5'2" 200lbs male in your platoon? All I'm good for, is target practice for the enemy.

To make things worst, I forgot to register to vote. I guess I deserve to die in the war.

Its the idiot Bush's fault, because he underestimated the number of troops that were required for Iraq and Afganistan. We got Saddam, where's Bin Laden? We should concentrate on getting the leader of Al Quida out, instead of securing Iraq. Let them fend for themselves.

[Miulang]

http://www.applepics.com/5/userfiles/416c1fca67f5b.gif

I guess the only thing saving me from the draft, is school or my obesity. Who'd want a 5'2" 200lbs male in your platoon? All I'm good for, is target practice for the enemy.

To make things worst, I forgot to register to vote. I guess I deserve to die in the war.

Its the idiot Bush's fault, because he underestimated the number of troops that were required for Iraq and Afganistan. We got Saddam, where's Bin Laden? We should concentrate on getting the leader of Al Quida out, instead of securing Iraq. Let them fend for themselves.
Eh Adrian:
School and your "roundness" may not keep you from getting called up. I think whoever wins the Presidential election will want all young Americans to go into public service for a year or two so everything is "fair". That may not necessarily be in a uniform of one of the armed forces, but it might mean teaching in an inner city school, working out in the forest, etc.

You would get paid, maybe learn a trade and use the time to figure out what you want to be when you grow up. If that had been an option for me (going into some kind of national service) when I was 18, I think I would have joined up. Maybe when I retire, I'll go join the Peace Corps. America has been good to me and I feel like I have to give something back to it. Another way I could give back is to become a teacher.

Miulang

BTW: I think Bush knows where bin Laden is (in China, where he's been getting medical care) and his administration is working on a deal to produce bin Laden right before the election. That's the most popular "October surprise" theory to bolster Bush's election that's floating around the internet right now.

[mcnabbmcnow]

First, the talk of a draft is just foolish. Neither party would ever install a draft...it would be political suicide. If anything there might be more incentive to join the military, but not a draft. Bush never has said anything about a draft...his opponents are just using this as a scare tactic.

About underestimating troops...war is always a difficult thing. You never know exactly how the script is going to go. The military did a SUPERB job losing as few troops as they did in taking Badhdad. However, they didn't realize that many army members in Iraq had fled and some regrouped...to blame Bush for military strategy is wrong. The commanders on the ground tell him exactly how many troops they need...he doesn't make military decisions.

[pzarquon]

First, the talk of a draft is just foolish. Neither party would ever install a draft...it would be political suicide. It's not a matter of wanting to institute a draft. Campaign rhetoric or not, the flat reality of the numbers make it look like a draft has to remain one of the options in America's toolbelt if we continue down our current path. I mean, if we're already issuing "stop loss orders (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm)" and extending tours. We've got tens of thousands of National Guard and Reserve troops deployed... and while they're hardworking, patriotic Americans, the fact of the matter is the "part-time military (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/national/23injured.html)" was not designed for active duty, or for duty overseas, for that matter.

If we're already stretched so thin, and yet we have to be prepared to put out other fires, to battle the gathering threat President Bush is so adamant still looms out there, where are we going to find the soldiers to do it all? While so many of our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq, what if all hell breaks loose in Korea, or Israel, or Taiwan, or South America (well, at least the oil-producing states)?

I don't think a draft is farfetched at all. The thing is, even a full "reverse course" (which Kerry's not even advocating) takes months to implement. Whoever is our president in 2005, they'll have to face the same questions. Frankly, I don't think either Bush or Kerry can rule it out.

[mcnabbmcnow]

It's not a matter of wanting to institute a draft. Campaign rhetoric or not, the flat reality of the numbers make it look like a draft has to remain one of the options in America's toolbelt if we continue down our current path. I mean, if we're already issuing "stop loss orders (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm)" and extending tours. We've got tens of thousands of National Guard and Reserve troops deployed... and while they're hardworking, patriotic Americans, the fact of the matter is the "part-time military (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/national/23injured.html)" was not designed for active duty, or for duty overseas, for that matter.

If we're already stretched so thin, and yet we have to be prepared to put out other fires, to battle the gathering threat President Bush is so adamant still looms out there, where are we going to find the soldiers to do it all? While so many of our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq, what if all hell breaks loose in Korea, or Israel, or Taiwan, or South America (well, at least the oil-producing states)?

I don't think a draft is farfetched at all. The thing is, even a full "reverse course" (which Kerry's not even advocating) takes months to implement. Whoever is our president in 2005, they'll have to face the same questions. Frankly, I don't think either Bush or Kerry can rule it out.

Doesn't a draft have to get voted on by Congress? It will never happen, and if it does, it will happen REGARDLESS of who is President. Bringing the troops home early without getting the job done will leave us worse off. Hopefully, Bush or Kerry can get some troops from other countries to help out...I did hear something about the British doing more. I wouldn't quote anything from the NY Times. That is perhaps the most liberal paper in the United States and actually had a writer making up completely false stories, and they got by the editor time after time, mostly about race issues.

[pzarquon]

It will never happen, and if it does, it will happen REGARDLESS of who is President.That's what I said. The "draft" question isn't good for either candidate. I suppose people think that Bush is more likely to institute it than Kerry, but then again, the majority of Americans think Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks.
I wouldn't quote anything from the NY Times. That is perhaps the most liberal paper in the United States...I was just citing a story, any story, about the effect of the Iraq War on the National Guard and Army Reserves. I don't think anyone needs a newspaper - liberal or conservative - to know that that such heavy deployments of these "backup" forces into active war zones is problematic. It's like driving cross-country on the little spare from your trunk. You could do it, but it's not a good idea. That spare is there to cover you when you absolutely need it, not to serve as a regular tire. Sadly, the Iraq mess is several miles from the next gas station...

[Miulang]

First, the talk of a draft is just foolish. Neither party would ever install a draft...it would be political suicide. If anything there might be more incentive to join the military, but not a draft. Bush never has said anything about a draft...his opponents are just using this as a scare tactic.

About underestimating troops...war is always a difficult thing. You never know exactly how the script is going to go. The military did a SUPERB job losing as few troops as they did in taking Badhdad. However, they didn't realize that many army members in Iraq had fled and some regrouped...to blame Bush for military strategy is wrong. The commanders on the ground tell him exactly how many troops they need...he doesn't make military decisions. We did great in the initial battles but we greatly underestimated the numbers of troops we needed after "victory" was declared. Read any of the Congressional hearing documents: Gen. Shinseki and several other commanders in the field requested additional troops and their requests were denied.

We get tallies of the number of US soldiers killed in combat (what is it now, something like 1,100?), but we don't often hear about the "walking wounded". There are over 8,000 of these men and women, coming back to the US, who besides missing limbs, are also suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome. How are we going to take care of these men and women who volunteered to protect us from harm if our VA Hospital system is so antiquated? We haven't taken care of the "walking wounded" from Vietnam very well, so how can we help the ones coming home broken now? How many of those Iraqi and Afghani veterans will become alcoholics, homeless, substance abusers, or suicidal...are we willing to create another generation of people like this? I pray we are smarter than that.
I did hear something about the British doing more. I wouldn't quote anything from the NY Times. That is perhaps the most liberal paper in the United States and actually had a writer making up completely false stories, and they got by the editor time after time, mostly about race issues. Prime Minister Blair coerced his Parliament into sending a few token Black Watch troops (as in something like maybe 800-1000) closer in to Baghdad from the south so our troops can go fight in Fallujah. That doesn't mean our troops are coming home any faster. It just means more of them will be put into harm's way trying to rout out al Zarqawi's men.

Blair is in so much hot water with his constituents and members of his own party right now over the Iraq conflict that he will have a tough time winning re-election early next year. He and the President are connected at the hip for some reason. I guess that's what happens when you realize every other country in the world thinks you made a strategic error. That also means that if Bush wins and Blair doesn't, more than likely the British troops will also leave Iraq which will really leave the US holding the bag. :(

Miulang

[adrian]

If the draft does return in some form at a time in the future, then I am scared. I was part of HPD's Law Enformcement Explorers Program a few months ago, and the PT they had was beyond what I expected (heck, most of the Explorers couldn't finish it also). But that'll pale in comparison to the military's PT (which I also tasted while under another advisor for the same program a few years ago, and that wasn't pretty either, but I liked his style).

Yes, I'm scared of the draft. I rather die in a house fire, be murdered in a dark alley, or be shocked to death by my computer while upgrading it, than go to the military, whether or not if its going to iraq or some other hostile country.

[Miulang]

Don't panic, Adrian. If Kerry gets elected, there will probably be some kind of alternative service that you could do for which you would get paid. Kinda like the VISTA program today. Not everyone who goes into national service would have to go fight in a war. There are lots of other ways you could help. If you like kids, maybe you could go help at a HeadStart program. If you like being outdoors, maybe you could go work for the Forestry Service. There's more than one way to serve your country. Since you like computers, maybe there will be "internships" working in data communications in the private sector. That way you could get on-the-job training for a career.

Now if Bush, on the other hand, gets re-elected and continues to follow his "stay the course" agenda, we will probably be engaged in a conflict in the Middle East well after the January elections, because even the temporary Prime Minister of Iraq Allawi is saying that maybe the election will only be available to about 90% of the Iraqi people because of the political instability in the country, which means that a group of people (probably the Turks or one of the minority religious groups in Iraq) will be excluded, which will create further civil unrest and require our extended engagement there. :(

Miulang