It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress ready to resurrect Draft!!..

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer

Are Democrats pushing to reinstate the Draft during a Republican Presidency? If you're Red or Blue, Conservative or Liberal, what are you feelings towards resurrecting the Draft?

[edit on 13-6-2005 by syntaxer]



Syntaxer, what you are witnessing is the progression from a two party state to a one party representation in two party sheeps clothing. I have noticed that they both work together with just enough animosity between them to keep up the facad of a two party system. Democracy is dead and we killed it through inaction and apathy.




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
Would the draft include both men and women?


I'm not sure but if I had to guess I would say that they would start with males first. I don't think the public as a whole is ready to see young women being sacrificed just yet.

All you young men that like spending a lot of time here at ATS better get ready 'cause you're about to get a reality check. The end of the innocence is upon you.

Peace and C.Y.A.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The current selective service law if instituted does not draft woman. In addition it starts the draft at 20 (or 21?) year olds not 18. It has very specific and limited ability to dodge the draft by going to college. If I remember correctly you can only be deferred to the end of the semester if you are drafted. Since the military even if we doubled the size of the Army would only need about 500,000 draftees we are looking at about a 20% chance any individual 20 year old would be drafted. If they were drafted for 18 months you are looking at an ongoing need to draft at most 15% of any year group in the following years. Unless we were planning to fight World War III I don't see the draft becoming the monster some imagine. Even if we assume a war with Iran and the need for such a draft for 4 years at a draft rate double what I figure I doubt we will see what happened in Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam most young people are aware of the threat of Islamic terrorism. Studies tend to show that the young are far more hawkish then their parents and Vietnam era grandparents. Your white liberals who do most of the protesting also tend to not have many kids so those who will scream the loudest will still be the least likely to be effected.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
There should definitely be draft, but only for non-combat troops and some Navy positions. It is simply too expensive for troops in such positions to remain paid profesionals.
On the other hand using the conscripts for specialized positions would be unproductive. The training takes more money than the savings on salaries make.

Or they could go with Swiss draft model - there is draft, but no one must serve, they just need to pay more on taxes (+3% I think for their whole future life), than those citizens who served in military.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
(Man I am going to get flammed for this one)

I actually like mandatory enlistment, I think Israel does it. 100% enlistment obligation after high school. Not all would need to be combatants of course, but some sort of service. Two years, college credit earned while in and incentives to stay if they choose to.

This way you always have a virtually unlimited pool at your disposal. I think today’s young Americans would benefit from the discipline as well.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I actually like how Israel does it. It's not manditory service. However, if you want full rights as a citizen, you get them upon signing up for the military. Kind of along the lines of saying if you want to direct where this country moves to in the future, you have to demonstrate a willingness to defend it, potentially with your life.

I don't however, support manditory service. You get too many hippies that way



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
How many times do they have to vote down any draft bills before people realize there won't be a draft any time soon (as in never - unless we're invaded or WWIV). The military will never allow it (whether recruitment goals are met or not) as it would cause an automatic and immediate downturn in the quality of our military.


How many votes did it recieve last time it was brought up? I'm pretty sure it was 0. It'll match that number this time.
When a draft bill came up in the Senate, not even the author of the bill voted for his own bill.


Let's be realistic here, virtually no congressman is going to vote for this. That's reality. No matter how many times it's brought up. Especially not with an election year next year. Believe it or not, congressmen like to get reelected and not commit political suicide.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
(Man I am going to get flammed for this one)

I actually like mandatory enlistment, I think Israel does it. 100% enlistment obligation after high school. Not all would need to be combatants of course, but some sort of service. Two years, college credit earned while in and incentives to stay if they choose to.

This way you always have a virtually unlimited pool at your disposal. I think today’s young Americans would benefit from the discipline as well.


I agree with you completely. That said though, doesn't that require absolute trust in the government. I think the Swiss do that, but have always tended to be nutreal to aviod the political deaths. However, if it was just for a standing army I think it is great. Would love to see that here in Canada.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Let's be realistic here, virtually no congressman is going to vote for this. That's reality. No matter how many times it's brought up. Especially not with an election year next year. Believe it or not, congressmen like to get reelected and not commit political suicide.


That's a great post TJW.


Here's why I think there will be a draft. No amount of incentives is going to get people to voluntarily sign up knowing they're going to be shipped off to hell on Earth. They need replacement troops not necessarily more troops, so your theory about more troops diminishing the effectiveness of our military is not really a concern here. You're right about Congress not voting for a draft because they want to be re-elected, so here's what I think is going to happen. Another more jaw-dropping "terrorist" attack will happen that will force Congress' hand. The people will accept it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". As I've said before, it's a time-tested process.

Peace



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
longbow
I don't personally like the Swiss model, because it appears to be extortion by another name.

antelope


The current selective service law if instituted does not draft woman. In addition it starts the draft at 20 (or 21?) year olds not 18.


The proposed draft would likely , include many women in the special skills section, such as medical employees. And I believe the age eligibility window would be 18-34.



It has very specific and limited ability to dodge the draft by going to college. If I remember correctly you can only be deferred to the end of the semester if you are drafted.


That's right, and the border with Canada has been effectively sealed, by the enactment of a law signed by Canadian authorities, promising the prompt return all draft dodgers.



Since the military even if we doubled the size of the Army would only need about 500,000 draftees we are looking at about a 20% chance any individual 20 year old would be drafted. If they were drafted for 18 months you are looking at an ongoing need to draft at most 15% of any year group in the following years.


I think you're forgetting to factor dead and wounded. I don't think we're going to Iran, but if we did, it would not be bloodless. We might go into N. Korea, and that would most certainly not be a cakewalk. They have the third largest army on the planet, if I'm not mistaken.



Unless we were planning to fight World War III I don't see the draft becoming the monster some imagine.


You might be right, the draft might not grow as large as some fear. In any case, an institution that eats young men is a monster. One loss is too many when the cause is not just. But you may, indeed, be right. The draft might not get big at all. People might revolt outright at the insult.



Even if we assume a war with Iran and the need for such a draft for 4 years at a draft rate double what I figure I doubt we will see what happened in Vietnam.


One would hope we wouldn't have to see it again to learn our lesson properly.



Unlike Vietnam most young people are aware of the threat of Islamic terrorism. Studies tend to show that the young are far more hawkish then their parents and Vietnam era grandparents.


I'd be interested in seeing those studies. While I don't necessarily doubt the veracity of your statement, because it sounds reasonable to me, I think that saying "studies tend to show" sets my spidey sense tingling. Like I said, I don't necessarily doubt the logic of your statement, because no youth I've ever met had the pleasure of participating in a war.

It's fun to talk about killing bad guys, until you grow up and realize just how complicated our notions of good and bad really are.



Your white liberals who do most of the protesting also tend to not have many kids so those who will scream the loudest will still be the least likely to be effected.


True, but the white liberals also don't do too much rioting, in comparison with disenfranchised ethnically diverse urbanites and slum dwellers of all shapes and sizes. That's where the fireworks will fly. They riot in NY when the AC goes out in the summer. What do you think they'll do when they find out 1/5th of the neighborhood is going to fight a war in the desert?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This is the only draft I support:





So long as we arent invaded



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The whole concept behind this draft is that the poor will no longer have to fight America's wars. The mentality, I think, is that the poor are the only ones in the military now, and they want to force the rich to have to participate as well.

Besides, we only have two more days until the draft begins




No, this is a true conspiracy. They want to bring back the draft so that in 2008 their candidate can point to the draft and say, "look, the Republicans brought back the draft!"



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Oh My God, the draft is coming??

You mean young American boys are going to be taught to be Men instead of sissies? Sounds good to this old soldier. The US Army made a Man outta me and more of our young American boys need some steel in their back-bone.

American boys have gone soft. I went to my nephews private high school graduation last week and Ive never seen a worse buncha sissies in my life.....only a handful out of dozens I saw looked like their ready to defend America.

The rest were ether too fat or acted like giggling school girls instead of young men. Yeah, we need the draft in a bad way before we end up with a buncha "girlie-men" who can't even fire a BB gun decently.


Maximu§



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
....so here's what I think is going to happen. Another more jaw-dropping "terrorist" attack will happen that will force Congress' hand. The people will accept it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". As I've said before, it's a time-tested process...


This statements almost sound like terrorist attacks are staged...



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Can't we just hire some more Mercs?

or hand out more green cards to those wanting to come here, just get them to sign up for manditory 5 yr duty service



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
mwen

Not "staged", more like 'allowed to happen'. There's a big difference. But this isn't the thread to debate that point in so I won't even start. That horse is beyond dead..........it's decaying.

Peace



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
Can't we just hire some more Mercs?

or hand out more green cards to those wanting to come here, just get them to sign up for manditory 5 yr duty service




Is'nt that partially how the Roman Empire fell apart??.....young Roman men decided that military service was "beneath them" and pretty soon the military is full of foreigners who may not always agree with policy.

Maximu§



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Or just stop invading countries illegally??

Thats just crazy enough to work!!



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Another more jaw-dropping "terrorist" attack will happen that will force Congress' hand. The people will accept it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". As I've said before, it's a time-tested process.

Peace

The only "terrorist" attack that would cause a draft would be an organized nuclear attack from a recognized country. But then it wouldn't be a terror attack, it'd be an act of war.

And it's not necessarily a time-tested process.....mainly because it's never happened before....
Unless I missed it



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Uhhhhhh.........you haven't heard anybody on the TV or any government officials talking about a possible nuclear attack by terrorists??? What planet do you live on?

The "time-tested" process I was referring to was the process by which the powers-that-be end up getting exactly what they want in a democracy.

Peace


[edit on 13-6-2005 by Dr Love]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join