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.

 

H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate...

If National Service were to be introduced it could solve the US obesity problem in a stroke.
They could even intoduce their own Latin motto "Eximius Amplitudo Mihi" ("super-size me")




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I honestly feel it would be a great idea for our culture to have a common bond between people and a personal stake in the future of the nation if everyone were forced to serve 2 years of our life dedicated to building the nation.

If people were concerned with American imperialism now, the "what if" of having our entire nation militarily trained and committed to improving and expanding our way of life makes ya go "hmmmm...."



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violent

If people were concerned with American imperialism now, the "what if" of having our entire nation militarily trained and committed to improving and expanding our way of life makes ya go "hmmmm...."


Exactly, all we ever hear is "evil empire" blah blah blah, and this is just with a few thousand armed servicemen.

I could imagine 200 million trained military personnel with US equipment. we could squash out Iraq and do in Iran quite easily if that were the case.

of course proposing this bill as an anti-war measure is retarded. Thats like saying Im going to go shoot people because I am anti-gun. the logic of democrats huh?


of course they would be the first ones screaming its unfair and running for canada....



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This is old news I thought?

Anyway. I believe the attempt was to make it rediculous, that way, a real bill to instate the draft would be seen in a similar light to a crazy one. That way (in his hopes) Ragnel could potentially stop a draft. It made sense to me...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

of course proposing this bill as an anti-war measure is retarded. Thats like saying Im going to go shoot people because I am anti-gun. the logic of democrats huh?


of course they would be the first ones screaming its unfair and running for canada....


I really don't understand the whole "its the liberals""its the republicans" leftvsright finger pointing. Is that somehow comforting to think that the "other side" is the root of evil? Both parties are corrupt to the core and bad for America and its time for an independant party running on platforms that reflect and give voice to the will of the people. But I digress.

The bill as an anti-war measure actually makes a good, and somewhat tongue in check subtle point. Rangle brought the draft bill forward to mock the hypocrisy in the mentality of those that want to start wars and have them continue for generations but would never offer anyone in their family for service. He didn't even vote on the bill, it was a statement not a real proposal from what I can find.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
That way (in his hopes) Ragnel could potentially stop a draft. It made sense to me...

Rangell either wanted to have a draft, so that 'rich brats' would have to fight their wars, OR so that people would say 'i ain't fighting in iraq, so I'll be against the war'. Not to prevent a draft.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Rangell either wanted to have a draft, so that 'rich brats' would have to fight their wars, OR so that people would say 'i ain't fighting in iraq, so I'll be against the war'. Not to prevent a draft.


Oh...
Well, either way, I'm glad it was dropped and stampled.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
There is probably some additional verbage that is hidden in the bill that states, people of US citizenship may petition for assignment to specific programs, whether civil affairs, uniformed service, national guard, homeland security etc. Those without valid and current US citizenship residing in the US may be subject to automatic assignment without due process for petitioning as that process is reserved for US Citizens first.

So yeah an attempt to scare the illegals into rethinking hopping the border



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
What theyre gonna do, nuke Iran and draft fat old civilians to fight?
I cant even imagine a stupider idea.
I mean 40 year old women drafted?
These idiots need vitamins or milk or something.
Stupid Washington retards, get a life. JHC!


[edit on 17-5-2006 by aeonsbeyond]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I like the spirit of Rengel's "draft".

Perhaps a draft of this nature WOULD make people less prone to warmongering, especially those rich pukes with kids. Make sure the rich boys cant sidestep it either because of college or whatever. Like Clinton did. Or get put on cake duty, like Dubya did. Oh, and as far as handicaps, if you have two working arms and legs and have any degree of sight or hearing

I would support such a draft if EVERYONE was required to go in at the same level and was distributed to different specialities based on their own personal merits. The class thing is a pretty good point for Rengel. The rich spoiled politicians are quite keen on military action, since their families are rarely ever serving in the armed forces, and if they are, its usually in really light and less lethal positions.

Perhaps the American public would be less quick to cry for blood and military action if everyones kids were gonna be the cannon fodder whose blood was gonna grease the gears of the war machine.

I actual;ly like the idea, which is strange, because I am actually opposed to the traditional draft, where young and usually poor to middle class males are sent in. As a veteran, I also know that the all volunteer army was far superior to the draft army. After all, people who chose to be there are gonna make the machine work far better than people who were dragged in kicking and screaming.

But hell, if we make it to where no one is safe from Uncle Sam, especially not the rich, then Im all for it.

Rich or poor, liberal or conservative, those who are so quick to send our forces off to these petty and unproductive conflicts should be the very first ones to have their children sacrificed on the altar of Mars.

Works for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Millions of men and women didn't object being drafted to serve the United States in national and civilian services, including fighting in World War II. Why shouldn't all of you now?


Is serving and fighting for your country a higher duty than yourself? Have this current generations truly changed from the past generations that were willing to serve, fight and die for a higher cause?


I'm willing to serve my country for a higher duty than myself, perhaps dying for a higher cause: peace. I'm just waiting for the right opportunity to be called upon to serve and fight for my country, even though I am being either a pawn or a player in this new world order.

This time, I'm willing to be a player, not a pawn.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yeah ww2 was against a real enemy, in a real war, to free real people from real threats.

Ths King size crock of BS that bush is gathering is for oil, oil, and oh so much more oil. Draft and die for oil? man people joined up gladly to fight ww2 because hitler was a real super danger man to the rest of the world, as were the japanese ....they needed stopping and millions died to achieve this - to them we owe thanks for our freedom.

Bush and Cheney are just oil hungry power mongers who love death and destruction - along with their poodle Blair this world is in serious danger of being screwed big style.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pawnplayer
Millions of men and women didn't object being drafted to serve the United States in national and civilian services, including fighting in World War II. Why shouldn't all of you now?


Is serving and fighting for your country a higher duty than yourself? Have this current generations truly changed from the past generations that were willing to serve, fight and die for a higher cause?


I'm willing to serve my country for a higher duty than myself, perhaps dying for a higher cause: peace. I'm just waiting for the right opportunity to be called upon to serve and fight for my country, even though I am being either a pawn or a player in this new world order.

This time, I'm willing to be a player, not a pawn.


To compare WW1 or WW2 with the absolute blunder that is Iraq is an insult to the MILLIONS of people who were killed in concentration camps who weren't in any draft - they were simply murdered - Not to mention a great deal of pride was involved in wanting revenge for Pearl Harbor (I dont want this to turn into a debate on whether or not we let it happen to enter the war). I also realize you didn't specifically state anything about the Iraq war, however if a draft were to be initiated, where exactly do you think we would be sent? I imagine if a situation materialized that was as dire as WW2 I think you would see alot more people willing to "sign up". Unfortunately, the only person alive right now dangerous enough to create that situation happens to be prez of the USA.

The issue is that people are far more informed now then 50+ years ago. We are living in the information (or rather dis-information.) age. You state that you are "waiting for the right opportunity to be called upon" - well, you could walk in right now and join up. There are recruitment centers everywhere. To state that our generation wont fight for a "higher cause" make me wonder....what higher cause is that? Oil? Revenge? You state peace, however this debacle has nothing to do with peace. The rhetoric from this administration demonizes any one who even mutters the word.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
World War II started during the great depression. Vietnam and WW I had a loot of resisters to the draft.

If you believe the rich and powerful are going to be forced to have their children fight in wars, you are quite naive. Even if everyone were forced to join the military for a few years, what makes you think that certain people wouldn't be able to get preferential treatment. Not everyone is going to get the same job. Politics will probably determine who gets which jobs.

Forced national service doesn't make any sense in a democracy. Why should the military/government force citizens to be feudal serfs?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by crontab
World War II started during the great depression. Vietnam and WW I had a loot of resisters to the draft.

If you believe the rich and powerful are going to be forced to have their children fight in wars, you are quite naive. Even if everyone were forced to join the military for a few years, what makes you think that certain people wouldn't be able to get preferential treatment. Not everyone is going to get the same job. Politics will probably determine who gets which jobs.

Forced national service doesn't make any sense in a democracy. Why should the military/government force citizens to be feudal serfs?


Youre missing the whole point of the arguement.

the arguement is that if there is going to be a draft, the ones to be drafted first are the offspring of the rich and powerful.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
Yeah ww2 was against a real enemy, in a real war, to free real people from real threats.

Ths King size crock of BS that bush is gathering is for oil, oil, and oh so much more oil. Draft and die for oil? man people joined up gladly to fight ww2 because hitler was a real super danger man to the rest of the world, as were the japanese ....they needed stopping and millions died to achieve this - to them we owe thanks for our freedom.

Bush and Cheney are just oil hungry power mongers who love death and destruction - along with their poodle Blair this world is in serious danger of being screwed big style.


I would rather fight for oil for this country than to see my country being blackmailed for oil in the future.

I don't believe in resource-sharing as long as every country is still blackmailing each other country in trade disputes over resources.

[edit on 5/17/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun
The issue is that people are far more informed now then 50+ years ago. We are living in the information (or rather dis-information.) age. You state that you are "waiting for the right opportunity to be called upon" - well, you could walk in right now and join up. There are recruitment centers everywhere. To state that our generation wont fight for a "higher cause" make me wonder....what higher cause is that? Oil? Revenge? You state peace, however this debacle has nothing to do with peace. The rhetoric from this administration demonizes any one who even mutters the word.


Perpetual war for perpetual peace. D'oh, the human race has been like that for centuries. What you're saying is nothing new to me.

You think every country should oblige to share resources with other countries for free or super-low prices?
I'm still waiting for my .10 per gallon for gas from Iran, my case of Bordeaux wines and fine cheese from France for free, my package of fine Belgian dark chocolate for $1 and a Japanese Honda Accord for only $100.


I would rather serve and fight for my country for the sake of economic survival and to avoid being subjected to political blackmailing by other countries with valuable resources crucial to our country's economic and political survival. What you are against, sir, is our country's economic survival.

You wanted the USA to be punished for being a powerful, productive and prosperous country for years?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Skadi, I understand the logic of Rangells idea, but the rich never Serve anyone.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
So, let me get this straight...

You people who wouldn't mind being drafted would knowingly...

Go to Iran/Syria/whoever's next on the PNAC hit list and get screwed by Halliburton
Get charged for damaged body armor because someone was trying to blow you away
Be sent in with others at numbers below those suggested for a swift victory
Go fight so that dirty elites can get richer
Kill people whose govt has been manipulated and screwed by yours

See, if this were a REAL threat, like, oh, I dunno, China actually invading us, then hell yeah, I'd grab an M-16 and blow some Commies away. But, since I know the politics behind this conflict, there's no way I'm going to go shoot up people being questionably invaded.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pawnplayer
Millions of men and women didn't object being drafted to serve the United States in national and civilian services, including fighting in World War II. Why shouldn't all of you now?


Is serving and fighting for your country a higher duty than yourself? Have this current generations truly changed from the past generations that were willing to serve, fight and die for a higher cause?




You know what, I'm 23 years old, and when you show me this "higher cause" and I find it to be a "higher cause" for this country, I'll be the first to take on the gun (though I will be dead, because I refuse to kill anyone). Darwinism at its finest? Oh well.

This country has lost whatever higher cause there was. Left wing, right wing... doesn't matter, both wings are broken, and this bird isn't flying.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join