Draft For All?

[lurker]

What thinketh you of this?

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.

Full text here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by lurker@Aug 9 2004, 11:41 PM

What thinketh you of this?

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.

Full text here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

I think that I should move to Canada. Maybe I can move to Winnie's city. Canada doesn't require a death contract, does it?

[Lindy]

Originally posted by lurker@Aug 9 2004, 11:41 PM

What thinketh you of this?

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.

Full text here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

I thinketh it stinketh.

Since our allies are dropping/have dropped like flies sprayed by Raid - I think it is a sad thing that those who are secure in their lives of authority want to send more and more people to die for someone else's game plan. If I didn't think that this whole mess was based on greed and personnal revenge, I might think differently. But I doubt it.

A draft to protect our country in the wake of war....homeland security...I could understand that...but as stipulated "national defense".....whose national offense....I mean 'defense'.

[Faerie]

What..you're upset about the draft *which has been around for HOW long?* or are you upset about the fact that they're amending it to include women?

THIS is what happens when feminists insist that women can do everything men can do....

and just so there's no confusion and no "bush bashing"...this bill along w/ bill HR89 which states the draft will be in force by june of 2005 were introduced by 7 democrats...

thank you :)

[Faerie]

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=168...6&PAG=461&rfi=9

[liahonagirl]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe the objections were being raised that the draft law would be ammended to make a period of service MANDATORY for all. There are laws in some European nations where a period (a year or 2) of military service is mandatory for all young people. As far as putting a draft into play at such time is necessary, that's what's been going on for years, and I think it's reasonable. However, I'm not sure I would support a mandatory period of service . . . haven't really thought of it much yet though . . .

ps -- thank you faerie for posting the link to the other article, and to you lurker for bringing the item to our attention in the first place.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Faerie@Aug 10 2004, 07:50 AM

What..you're upset about the draft *which has been around for HOW long?* or are you upset about the fact that they're amending it to include women?

THIS is what happens when feminists insist that women can do everything men can do....

and just so there's no confusion and no "bush bashing"...this bill along w/ bill HR89 which states the draft will be in force by june of 2005 were introduced by 7 democrats...

thank you :)

What? Upset about the draft? NO! Upset that it could be reinstated to help maintain control/patrol (of) someone else's country? YES! I am a true blue redblooded American who understands the need of the Selective Service. Yet I remember Vietnam and the needless deaths in someone else's country. You weren't born yet. You didn't live thru those years. You didn't have to eat your dinner as a child watching youngmen being blown up before your eyes on news at night. You are pregnant...so I'll spare you the rest. Just suffice it to say that I didn't approve of the "war".

As for amending it to include women.....best idea they could have had! Some of the best minds I know are female

And as for "bush bashing" or confusion.....I don't care if democrats, republicans, Naders or the Pope himself voted on introducing the bill to congress (or whatever) I will never like the idea of making it manditory for our nations young people to have to fight and die for no reason.

Ok....I'm done :)

[Faerie]

From what I read on the issue, it's all a political move...not something to "really" worry about...

as far as vietnam, no I didn't grow up w/ that...but I've grown up watching the world evolve...do I approve of this war? Yes, because it's not just "Bush's war".....this country has been wanting to do what Bush did for the past two decades...do I wish it was over? of course!! no one WANTS war, but it's a neccessity of life...

Keep in mind, WWI and WWII we had the draft to "take care of someone else's country"...the war in Iraq is no different...

As far as "mandatory" service, I don't see a problem with that...I think we're one of the last countries in the world to NOT have a mandatory military...however, everything I read makes these two bills out to simply be amendments to the already existing "draft law"..the changes are including women and changing a few other language bits...

Apparently according to some liberal talk show host, this goes up for vote in December...

[Outshined]

I don't think it's likely to happen unless something very big comes up. The military uses too much extremely expensive equipment for people who don't want to be there to screw up. It's hard enough to train the ones who want to be there, let alone those brought in unwillingly.

Then again, I know some kids who could really benefit from it...

[Ray]

What are you folks worrying about? Are you saying that you don’t have any Faith that the President will make righteous choices about how he implements this act? If all young Americans spent 2 years serving their country, I think more young people would appreciate what our country does and has done for them. And if some did die, and some usually do, what better service can they give than to die protecting the rights and liberties of others? I'm willing to die for that.

[Faerie]

outshined, that's basically what that congressman stated in the link i provided...it's too expensive to train voluntary military personnel....that the money for involuntary enrollment is better spent on training current enrollment...

and i agree ray!

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 10 2004, 02:32 PM

What are you folks worrying about? Are you saying that you don’t have any Faith that the President will make righteous choices about how he implements this act? If all young Americans spent 2 years serving their country, I think more young people would appreciate what our country does and has done for them. And if some did die, and some usually do, what better service can they give than to die protecting the rights and liberties of others? I'm willing to die for that.

Okay, you go and die for that then. I'm going to stay at home where I don't have to worry about being blown up by car bombs.

[Ray]

I figure that I’ve already served my time in the military, after a stint in the Air Force, but over the years I’ve wondered if my life would have somehow been better if I had served longer. I joined when I was 20 and could have been receiving retirement benefits by now. But now I’m too old to get back in! :)

[Lindy]

I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, I was glad that the President sent our military over to flush out terrorists....then it was looking like it was a good reason to send an army in to find and destroy the regime of Saddam H....(not a bad thing mind you)...but a good cover store nevertheless.

I am glad that there are professionally trained men and women (if weekend National Guards is considered training ) who are sent over there to end the terror of one man. But I am not happy with the things I have found out since our troops took down his tyranny of evil. It was certain things that has uncovered bitter feelings which I had submerged for decades.

I too believe that more good is done with the proper training ...What faerie quoted from the congressmen "it's too expensive to train voluntary military personnel....that the money for involuntary enrollment is better spent on training current enrollment..." is so very, very true. Our military needs the training, the protection, the best. But I don't like the idea of drafting every eligible young person (involuntary enrollment) into the services just to send them overseas, give them a gun to kill or be killed. If every eligible person was needed to protect the homeland, then it is something that would have to be done. I have no problem with that. I think that in that case...the young people would have more of a concept and appreciation of what they were actually fighting for.

Ray...you said "more young people would appreciate what our country does and has done for them. And if some did die, and some usually do, what better service can they give than to die protecting the rights and liberties of others? I'm willing to die for that." That is a great statement.... You may be willing to die for the rights and liberties of others...it's a very noble thing to do...but there are countless amounts of others who aren't. They would choose to live with their wifes, their children and their loved ones, they were brought up with the idea that they would have their freedom to choose what they would do and how they would live. Forcing them to kill another human being in the protection of rights and liberties of someone else? That's not freedom to me. I am sure that if you asked, those who don't want any part of someone else's fight, they will tell you point blank...that they would give their lives to protect their son or daughter, their mother, father or wife.....and that also is noble. And if push came to shove they would be there to protect their rights and liberties of that I have no doubt. Let it be known that I would gladly carry a gun and stand next to someone who needed me to protect my family, my home, my country. And if I could, I would probably take part of the hunt for the terrorists who want to destroy our nation and our way of life. But I would do it willingly....not be forced to do something I don't believe in.

Too many benefits were taken from our military people, too many hardships went unrewarded for the sacrifices that they gave over the years. I am glad that the public has had a re-awakening to the real sacrifices and honor that our servicemen and women are now giving....and have been giving for years and years. It's a shame that others have had to die for what they believed in for people to wake up and take notice of all that has been given (on their part).

That is the bottom line to me (I guess) To fight and die for something you believe in. Not pushed into something you don't.

Sorry it was so long...day off you know....had to do something....venting seemed a good idea

[Faerie]

Lindy I think the main reason for that is that you've grown up in a country with a voluntary military...many, many countries around the world have a mandatory military force and it's everyday life to them...

change is always something that can rub us the wrong way...but i really, REALLY don't think this will be an issue...just something to stir the pot and to slant political views...

i read this one liberal talk show host's view on it...said even though the democrats introduced and pushed the bill, it's still all GW's fault cuz he's the president...*shrug*...i think some people view the president as this everpresent diety sitting in Congress controlling everyone like puppets..ROFL!!

[lurker]

I think that a person's opinion on the mandatory draft can generally be predicted by his age. This may sound like a better idea if I were 40...

It does seem like the whole bill was a political maneuver. But, that wasn't very nice.

[Ray]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 10 2004, 04:51 PM

I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, I was glad that the President sent our military over to flush out terrorists....then it was looking like it was a good reason to send an army in to find and destroy the regime of Saddam H....(not a bad thing mind you)...but a good cover store nevertheless.

I am glad that there are professionally trained men and women (if weekend National Guards is considered training ) who are sent over there to end the terror of one man. But I am not happy with the things I have found out since our troops took down his tyranny of evil. It was certain things that has uncovered bitter feelings which I had submerged for decades.

I too believe that more good is done with the proper training ...What faerie quoted from the congressmen "it's too expensive to train voluntary military personnel....that the money for involuntary enrollment is better spent on training current enrollment..." is so very, very true. Our military needs the training, the protection, the best. But I don't like the idea of drafting every eligible young person (involuntary enrollment) into the services just to send them overseas, give them a gun to kill or be killed. If every eligible person was needed to protect the homeland, then it is something that would have to be done. I have no problem with that. I think that in that case...the young people would have more of a concept and appreciation of what they were actually fighting for.

Ray...you said "more young people would appreciate what our country does and has done for them. And if some did die, and some usually do, what better service can they give than to die protecting the rights and liberties of others? I'm willing to die for that." That is a great statement.... You may be willing to die for the rights and liberties of others...it's a very noble thing to do...but there are countless amounts of others who aren't. They would choose to live with their wifes, their children and their loved ones, they were brought up with the idea that they would have their freedom to choose what they would do and how they would live. Forcing them to kill another human being in the protection of rights and liberties of someone else? That's not freedom to me. I am sure that if you asked, those who don't want any part of someone else's fight, they will tell you point blank...that they would give their lives to protect their son or daughter, their mother, father or wife.....and that also is noble. And if push came to shove they would be there to protect their rights and liberties of that I have no doubt. Let it be known that I would gladly carry a gun and stand next to someone who needed me to protect my family, my home, my country. And if I could, I would probably take part of the hunt for the terrorists who want to destroy our nation and our way of life. But I would do it willingly....not be forced to do something I don't believe in.

Too many benefits were taken from our military people, too many hardships went unrewarded for the sacrifices that they gave over the years. I am glad that the public has had a re-awakening to the real sacrifices and honor that our servicemen and women are now giving....and have been giving for years and years. It's a shame that others have had to die for what they believed in for people to wake up and take notice of all that has been given (on their part).

That is the bottom line to me (I guess) To fight and die for something you believe in. Not pushed into something you don't.

Sorry it was so long...day off you know....had to do something....venting seemed a good idea

I hear what you're saying, I really do, but our freedom didn't come free and there is no good reason to suppose that it ever will. There are many Americans who would rather have other people go and fight for our country, while staying totally out of it themselves, but I believe that every American should be willing to do, and even be expected to do, what so many others have already done for us. Freedom does not come free.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I'm willing to die for that.

I'm not willing to die for my country. People don't win wars by dying for their country. They do it by making the other guy die for his.

(Apologies to Patton.)

Seriously, I think there's a major difference between being willing to die for one's country and being willing to risk one's life for it. The fact that a Marine would probably not be willing to sacrifice his life to gain whatever benefits to America's security there are to be gained by cleaning insurgents out of Fallujah does not mean that he wouldn't be willing to take serious risks to do the same thing.

A police officer probably wouldn't be willing to sacrifice his life to enforce the speed limit -- but cops have been killed in the line of highway patrol duty. Cops know this, and accept the risk. What isn't worth an explicit sacrifice is worth a risk. Not that it compares (few lifeguards have ever been killed on duty, although lots, including me, get hurt), but I certainly wouldn't have been willing to lay down my life to rescue the bobbing bits of mindless human flotsam that floundered around off the 32nd Street beach. I was, though, perfectly happy to accept the (small) risk of harm -- because it was my job, and I was proud to do it.

The human mind is strange in that way. We are natural gamblers -- we gladly take risks that, added together, may end up establishing a 100% chance of early death, but we would almost never intentionally sacrifice ourselves.

As for the transparently cynical Democratic maneuver of calling for a draft (clearly intended to scare people and erode public support for the Iraq campaign), I have nothing to say, except that it only reinforces my conviction that there are too many people in that party who either don't think we're at war, or want us to lose, or don't care what happens as long as they benefit politically for me ever to consider voting for someone with the power to fill federal offices until the party comes to its collective senses and reclaims the legacy of Truman, Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson.

Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Aug 10 2004, 07:13 PM

I'm willing to die for that.

I'm not willing to die for my country. People don't win wars by dying for their country. They do it by making the other guy die for his.

(Apologies to Patton.)

Seriously, I think there's a major difference between being willing to die for one's country and being willing to risk one's life for it. The fact that a Marine would probably not be willing to sacrifice his life to gain whatever benefits to America's security there are to be gained by cleaning insurgents out of Fallujah does not mean that he wouldn't be willing to take serious risks to do the same thing.

A police officer probably wouldn't be willing to sacrifice his life to enforce the speed limit -- but cops have been killed in the line of highway patrol duty. Cops know this, and accept the risk. What isn't worth an explicit sacrifice is worth a risk. Not that it compares (few lifeguards have ever been killed on duty, although lots, including me, get hurt), but I certainly wouldn't have been willing to lay down my life to rescue the bobbing bits of mindless human flotsam that floundered around off the 32nd Street beach. I was, though, perfectly happy to accept the (small) risk of harm -- because it was my job, and I was proud to do it.

The human mind is strange in that way. We are natural gamblers -- we gladly take risks that, added together, may end up establishing a 100% chance of early death, but we would almost never intentionally sacrifice ourselves.

As for the transparently cynical Democratic maneuver of calling for a draft (clearly intended to scare people and erode public support for the Iraq campaign), I have nothing to say, except that it only reinforces my conviction that there are too many people in that party who either don't think we're at war, or want us to lose, or don't care what happens as long as they benefit politically for me ever to consider voting for someone with the power to fill federal offices until the party comes to its collective senses and reclaims the legacy of Truman, Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson.

Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!

Heh, always such a flare for the dramatic ProudDuck. :)

I would actually be willing to lay down my life so that others might live in a free and just society. Not that I'd enjoy making that sacrifice, or that I wouldn't want to keep living in this world close to my wife and other loved ones, but I would actually be willing to die for that cause.

I think of it like I think of that other oath we take, meaning that I would do all and give all to establish the kingdom of God on Earth, even to the point of laying down my life if necessary, but yet I would hope it wouldn't come to that.

[Lindy]

Being a Marine, a police officer, a firefighter, EMT, or even the job as a flagger on a construction crew is taken on with the knowledge and the acceptance of assuming that risk of the possibility of injury or death. Every precaution should be taken to reduce any potential risk....but dangerous situations is what that job entails. It is what they signed up to take on.

I understand that other countries do have a mandatory military obligation....I wonder how many are properly trained, have a loyalty to their duty or their country? I wonder how safe their countrymen feel if they are faced with relying on their "obligated" soldiers? I know I would want to be standing behind the soldiers who wanted to be holding their position.

Reading Rays post I had a lyrics pop into my head....

"All gave some and some gave all

And some stood through for the red, white and blue

And some had to fall

And if you ever think of me

Think of all your liberties and recall

Some gave all"

off of a Billy Roy Cyrus album.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by lurker@Aug 10 2004, 07:30 PM

It does seem like the whole bill was a political maneuver. But, that wasn't very nice.

Actually, I believe the bill was submitted to cover any eventuality, in case they needed it.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 10 2004, 04:32 PM

What are you folks worrying about? Are you saying that you don’t have any Faith that the President will make righteous choices about how he implements this act?

Absolutely!

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 10 2004, 06:51 PM

I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, I was glad that the President sent our military over to flush out terrorists....then it was looking like it was a good reason to send an army in to find and destroy the regime of Saddam H....(not a bad thing mind you)...but a good cover store nevertheless.

I am glad that there are professionally trained men and women (if weekend National Guards is considered training ) who are sent over there to end the terror of one man. But I am not happy with the things I have found out since our troops took down his tyranny of evil. It was certain things that has uncovered bitter feelings which I had submerged for decades.

I too believe that more good is done with the proper training ...What faerie quoted from the congressmen "it's too expensive to train voluntary military personnel....that the money for involuntary enrollment is better spent on training current enrollment..." is so very, very true. Our military needs the training, the protection, the best. But I don't like the idea of drafting every eligible young person (involuntary enrollment) into the services just to send them overseas, give them a gun to kill or be killed. If every eligible person was needed to protect the homeland, then it is something that would have to be done. I have no problem with that. I think that in that case...the young people would have more of a concept and appreciation of what they were actually fighting for.

Ray...you said "more young people would appreciate what our country does and has done for them. And if some did die, and some usually do, what better service can they give than to die protecting the rights and liberties of others? I'm willing to die for that." That is a great statement.... You may be willing to die for the rights and liberties of others...it's a very noble thing to do...but there are countless amounts of others who aren't. They would choose to live with their wifes, their children and their loved ones, they were brought up with the idea that they would have their freedom to choose what they would do and how they would live. Forcing them to kill another human being in the protection of rights and liberties of someone else? That's not freedom to me. I am sure that if you asked, those who don't want any part of someone else's fight, they will tell you point blank...that they would give their lives to protect their son or daughter, their mother, father or wife.....and that also is noble. And if push came to shove they would be there to protect their rights and liberties of that I have no doubt. Let it be known that I would gladly carry a gun and stand next to someone who needed me to protect my family, my home, my country. And if I could, I would probably take part of the hunt for the terrorists who want to destroy our nation and our way of life. But I would do it willingly....not be forced to do something I don't believe in.

Too many benefits were taken from our military people, too many hardships went unrewarded for the sacrifices that they gave over the years. I am glad that the public has had a re-awakening to the real sacrifices and honor that our servicemen and women are now giving....and have been giving for years and years. It's a shame that others have had to die for what they believed in for people to wake up and take notice of all that has been given (on their part).

That is the bottom line to me (I guess) To fight and die for something you believe in. Not pushed into something you don't.

Sorry it was so long...day off you know....had to do something....venting seemed a good idea

I'm with you, Sista!