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.

 

Put Up Or Shut Up

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   


Personally I think that a little hard work and sacrifice for others is exactly what this country needs to stand united, instead on continuing the fragmentation and allienation from one another...turn off the tv and get your ever fattening arses up and do something productive.



My family came over in 1625 and has fought in every war this country has ever had and I have the scars to show for my "hard work and sacrifice" and I am against this bill.

Heres two thoughts on the subject

1. How high are they gonna have to raise taxes to pay for EVERYONE to do a couple years in the service?

2. What are they gonna do with this HUGE machine.

We cant trust the assholes with the army we have, one this size would be too tempting to the empire builders in our governmet




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by CazMedia


Excuse me, but doesnt the bill also include civil service Or millitary service?


Yes, but it gives the president quite a large range of powers. Here is the paraphrased version:

The bill:

Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security.

Gives the President authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for the same duration as those selected for military service (two years in most cases).

Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the Act, including:

types of civilian service eligible to meet the national service requirement;

means and manner of induction to service;

criteria for eligibility for service;

criteria for exemption from service;

all other administrative matters in connection with induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination and classification of such persons.

Allows the President to use for the purposes of the Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C.App. 451 et seq.) including procedures for registration, selection, and induction but specifically requires the registration and selection for national service of women as well as men and seeks to strictly limit the grounds for exemption from national service to physical disability and consciencious objection.

Allows educational deferments for High School, but only until age 20.


This is not a good thing, in that we do not know who in the future will be using this act and for what purpose.


Personally I think that a little hard work and sacrifice for others is exactly what this country needs to stand united, instead on continuing the fragmentation and allienation from one another...turn off the tv and get your ever fattening arses up and do something productive.


This is quite a broad based statement that is far from true. There are many ways for people to contribute.


Put the rich kids in with the poor and make them all help the elderly, pick up trash, scrub grafiti...do something!!!
This will cross social and economic boundaries and give them a good healthy dose of Im equal to you, no better or worse.


I highly doubt that this is the function of the Act. It's the draft and Hitler Youth rolled into one. Notice the "patriotism" of the military, perhaps they hope to indoctrinate all youths to the NWO.


Freedom isnt free....
If your willing to mame yourself or flee to another country, then YOU DONT DESERVE THE FREEDOMS OFFERED HERE.
If you cant give something back, why do you get to collect anything in return?
Invest in a common future, not a special intrest fiasco.


Freedom isn't free. It was payed for dearly by those who came before us. But can you honestly say that any war after WW2 has been about protecting freedom for US citizens?

The answer is no, nor do we know what kind of war we will engage in in the future.

I served in the Marine Corps Infantry and even I am against this. Should people attack American soil in a symetric manner, not only do we have a healthy military now, but our reserves, militia, gunowners, police, etc would be kicking some serious ass.

This is unneeded and foolhardy. There is nothing that says that people's freedoms do not include the freedom of thought. Perhaps you also wish to stem the freedom of thought.

I guess in your world, the people who wish for peace at all costs can go # themselves.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I'll be making sure to tell my legislators Im in favor of this legislation...politely of course.

JJ
You said;
"Now look at where all the ex-hippies are. They did get the draft repealed, but now they're all trying to pass stronger drug laws, rights of the establishment, etc. It's just the youth that is going to rise up against this. "

So where did the hippies go?
Ya think they grew up and realized the pipe dream that the 60's movements were about? Their great ideas, but in practice are problematic at best...and with the cold reality of the world in their face, perhaps they now see something about "the establishment" they like that they didnt see then.



I actually do not think that's what happened. My mom, who is an ex-hippie, and I were talking for a long while on this a while back. It's her belief that the youth think they can change the world, and after they grow up, most of them are jaded. As for their great ideas, many to all of them are still in support of civil rights for blacks and for women. That wasn't a pipedream, they changed the nation, and the world. They were anti-establishment because the establishment was anti-them.

Thankfully, this is not the case for the youth of today. The establishment is not against us, and I am not advocating any kind of anti-establishment movement. I'm saying work with the establishment to change it's practices. The youth and seniors are the largest voting blocks in the nation, and the seniors cast their votes quietly. It's the youth that has the energy and the drive to go out there and yell out what they believe in. Many middle agers just don't want to put up with the fight, so go along. So no, I don't think the ex-hippies realzed their pipedream was nothing.

EDIT: I am emailing Peter Fitzgerald's office to find out if this bill has been voted on, and what the voting record was. I'll either post a link or the results when I get a reply.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
FYI, the links at the top of the thread have stopped working. If you do a search on thomas.loc.gov... for Bill number S 89 it'll bring up the bill. This is the website of the senator who proposed the bill:

www.senate.gov...

I would also like to mention that a senator from Nebraska brought up the draft again in congress today. It seems that the whole bill is being downplayed, because he was reminded, according to what I heard on WBBM, that there was already a bill on the floor that proposed that.

EDIT: Senator Hollings' opinion of why he wants a draft instituted:
hollings.senate.gov...

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
KJ,
Thank you for your service to the country.
now on to this debate.

Because we cannot predict the future events or natures of conflict (or anything), is not a valid argument against adopting this plan. (or any plan) If only we could predict the future.

Yes there are many ways our youth COULD contribute...but how many do you see doing anything but selfish consumption?

How often do you see youth grouping themselves by race or economics, or any other type of devisive criteria?
How often do you see interactions between these cliques?

Look at the Columbine school shooting....the 2 perpetrators (not defending their actions!!!!) were not included by others, in fact we now know that they were ostracized and "picked on" by others....WHY?
Because there was so much of a gap betwen the cliques, that these 2 kids snapped and retaliated against their percieved aggressors. One tragic example of a fragmented culture....all contained in one school...do you think this feeling is isolated?

Do you think the price of liberty was a one time cost?
defending our way of life is an everyday price that is paid, in peaceful acts as well as in war.
We are seeing an ideological war between our beliefs and radicle fundamentalism...NOW IS THE TIME to defend our freedoms.

Is a conflict over ideology more or less valid than one over tangible resources?

I see people obsessing with the millitary aspect of this civil service act...yes its a component, but not the only way to utilize this labor pool.

KJ says
"I guess in your world, the people who wish for peace at all costs can go [V] themselves. "

No, but working for "peace at all costs" means to me....ALL COSTS! even if there must be a sacrifice, great or small, even if this means that you must actually do something (perhaps fight) to secure those liberties.
Those that do nothing to ensure the peace they seek will be the first ones to lose this liberty.

"you cant trust freedom when its not in your hands, when everybody's fighting for the promised land"
Guns&Roses



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I dont really get the point of debating this issue... the bills are long since dead. Is this "debate" about the bills or about mandatory Federal Service in the abstract?

In the abstract, mandatory Federal Service (which is what the bills called for) is a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, there would undoubtably be inequity in any bureaucratic system. I believe it was inequity in the draft that many of the vietnam-era protests were really about.

Anyways, its really pointless to stand on a soap-box here. In the abstract, what would be wrong with mandatory Federal Service? Of course, since this is the abstract, you should have no trouble at all distinguishing between the idealized system that is the topic of debate, and any actual, real-world system that might come to exist.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cascadego
I dont really get the point of debating this issue... the bills are long since dead. Is this "debate" about the bills or about mandatory Federal Service in the abstract?


I'll address this tonight, but I have to go to bed. I do have arguements against the last 2 posts, my opinion, of course, but they'll take more time to talk about.

The bill is not dead. A senator from Nebraska (Can't remember his name, but he's a republican and his last name starts with "H" (Not Hatch, he's Utah) brought it up again today. Many news agencies talked about reinstituting a draft, not really understanding the bill, apparently. Sean Hannity talked about it on Hannity and Colmes and the Sean Hannity show. I'm glad to say he's against it. But the bill is not dead. It keeps resurfacing. Today, however, is, I think, the first day that it has gotten national media attention. Thank you and good night!



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
KJ,
Thank you for your service to the country.
now on to this debate.

Well this is a first. You're welcome. It was of course my pleasure (or pain depending on your point of view)


Because we cannot predict the future events or natures of conflict (or anything), is not a valid argument against adopting this plan. (or any plan) If only we could predict the future.

I onlt bring that into play because of the power it gives the president. He can 1) choose where people go (what service) and 2) choose the induction method (to site a few). This is see as dangerous. The power of choice is taken from us and our kids on how our they live. I refuse to have my children be part in this should they choose not to.

Yes there are many ways our youth COULD contribute...but how many do you see doing anything but selfish consumption?

That is not a justifiable reason, and it is a gross misrepresentation.

How often do you see youth grouping themselves by race or economics, or any other type of devisive criteria?
How often do you see interactions between these cliques?

Again, nothing to do with the law

Look at the Columbine school shooting....the 2 perpetrators (not defending their actions!!!!) were not included by others, in fact we now know that they were ostracized and "picked on" by others....WHY?
Because there was so much of a gap betwen the cliques, that these 2 kids snapped and retaliated against their percieved aggressors. One tragic example of a fragmented culture....all contained in one school...do you think this feeling is isolated?

Columbine is not the standard for children. They are the exception. Some people are broken.

Do you think the price of liberty was a one time cost?
defending our way of life is an everyday price that is paid, in peaceful acts as well as in war.
We are seeing an ideological war between our beliefs and radicle fundamentalism...NOW IS THE TIME to defend our freedoms.

What you prescribe is world war, and will lead to such should we continue to use our military incorrently. This is a surgical problem being handled with shotgun politics.

Is a conflict over ideology more or less valid than one over tangible resources?

Somewhat, depending. But are you sure you know why these "fundamentalists" are doing what they are doing? Is Bush not a fundamentalist? I believe he is.

I see people obsessing with the millitary aspect of this civil service act...yes its a component, but not the only way to utilize this labor pool.

Ah, there in lies the problem. The labor force is placed where the need is greatest. In a time of war, I can only figure they would go to one place majoritively.

KJ says
"I guess in your world, the people who wish for peace at all costs can go [V] themselves. "

No, but working for "peace at all costs" means to me....ALL COSTS! even if there must be a sacrifice, great or small, even if this means that you must actually do something (perhaps fight) to secure those liberties.
Those that do nothing to ensure the peace they seek will be the first ones to lose this liberty.

You are under the misconception that what we are doing is somehow related to terror, US security, and peace. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1 & 2 have nothing to do with any of that. We overextend ourselves and are in effect creating more terrorists with, as they call it, "imperialistic" policy.

"you cant trust freedom when its not in your hands, when everybody's fighting for the promised land"
Guns&Roses



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Keep thinking Bush 'supports Christian Values'. Keep thinking 'He believes in what he's doing'.
All of the worst examples of humanity had a devout belief in their chosen paths....what makes the argument that he's deserving of running this country based on that?

Suggestion: Go Air Force, kids!



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Keep thinking Bush 'supports Christian Values'. Keep thinking 'He believes in what he's doing'.
All of the worst examples of humanity had a devout belief in their chosen paths....what makes the argument that he's deserving of running this country based on that?

Suggestion: Go Air Force, kids!


I don't really understand what this statement has to do with Bush supporting the draft. So far, the administration has said nothing about the bill, and from what I have been able to find out, very few senators actually support it. Those that do are both democratic and republican. So it could also be said, Support Kerry = Support the Draft. Kerry has actually come out and said he supports obligatory military service. Bush has not.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
And the " = " has to do with cause & effect; zero global diplomacy acumen in this administration + a fully owned corporate interests apperatus in this administration + a joining at hip to the Oil/Energy industry & it's hot spots in S.America/ME/SE Asia, will = the need for a draft, given our current course.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Well, as I've said before, the bill isn't dead, but no one seems to know about it. When the senator from Nebraska brough up the draft, he was actually nudged by a fellow senator and told that there was already a bill on the table for a draft.

A friend of mine made a good point when we were talking about it. There's no way Bush or the senate, or congress could sneak it into law without making a big deal about it. It's been out there since January of 2003, and hasn't been voted on. In order to vote on it, they will have to discuss and debate it. Contrary to popular thought, people do watch C-Span. It would be on the national media almost instantly when that debate comes up. The other day, a single senator said we should have a draft, and every news program in the nation mentioned it (that I saw, anyway). If they're debating the issue, we'll be getting blow by blow info on it. Vietnam is too fresh in our minds, and most of the people in the national news market lived through it. They won't let it go. I'm a bit relieved



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join