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.

 

SECURITY: The Draft

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Whether you are Libertarian or not, you can clearly see that this is a BAD idea. Simply because the federal government could not enforce such a law on such a large basis.




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
we should send crimanals to war first, i mean its better than sending kids off to die that cant even drink yet. and if i was in jail i would much rather be fighting in Iraq than rotting in a prison.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'm opposed to the draft. Draft leads to unmotivated, unqualified idiots in charge of multi-billion dollar killing machines. From a military stand point the armed forces should have the right to take only the best of the best. I know some people even on ATS who I wouldn't want under my command if I were a general. But I will admit that in the event of a major war that poses a threat to American soil then we can enact the draft. But naturally the best we have should get to use the expensive stuff. The draftees can have their M-16s. What we need is not a lot of soldiers but a few qualified soldiers who can get the job done with out a major incident.


Best answer to this question I agree with this 100% And I Also think to make it fair if 18 year old MEN have to register for selective service so should 18 year old WOMEN.....And no higher education OUTS this time if your drafted and are Phisicaly fit to serve you SERVE regardless of background or Family wealth.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I heard John Kerry on Imus in the Morning today. Although I found it hard to listen to all the tried to say, I think the following quote bears repeating. One could infer that Mr. Kerry would be eager to beefup the military, perhaprs with a draft.

It is important to do much more rapid training. Senator Biden came back from over there, other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.

But look, I have to look and see what I have on January 20. At the rate the president's going, nobody can predict what will happen on January 20. I'll tell you this: A new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, who listens to the military leaders, doesn't fire them, like General Shinseki, when they give him advice they don't like, a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders, will have the opportunity to isolate the extremists and to bring people to the table in different ways: for border security, for training, and to do the things necessary to provide stability. I'm committed to providing that stability


www.msnbc.msn.com...


[edit on 18-9-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I heard John Kerry on Imus in the Morning today. Although I found it hard to listen to all the tried to say, I think the following quote bears repeating. One could infer that Mr. Kerry would be eager to beefup the military, perhaprs with a draft.

It is important to do much more rapid training. Senator Biden came back from over there, other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.

But look, I have to look and see what I have on January 20. At the rate the president's going, nobody can predict what will happen on January 20. I'll tell you this: A new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, who listens to the military leaders, doesn't fire them, like General Shinseki, when they give him advice they don't like, a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders, will have the opportunity to isolate the extremists and to bring people to the table in different ways: for border security, for training, and to do the things necessary to provide stability. I'm committed to providing that stability


www.msnbc.msn.com...


I fail to see the inference wherein you see Kerry backing or welcoming or implying anything about a draft. I see a dilligent, considered, diplomat. One who takes the time to think through the various repercussions of his decisions. One who refuses to exclude all options available, being legal, moral, and within the power of the President.



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Well, I don't know about his being a diligent, considered diplomat. I read the whole trascript and heard most of it live. Your impression differs from my impression.


... other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.


here Kerry is saying the Biden and other expertrs have stated that the military is not up to the task. The sentence I made bold says to me that America needs to accelerate the training and the pace of the training to establish security. To me, it is obviously not happening with a volunteer military. The only thing left is the draft.
There has also been discussion on ATS that Selective Service Budget for 2005 is getting bigger.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I understand what you are saying. I even personally support a two year period of mandatory National Service. I also feel that we are under committed in Iraq if we wish to succede in the goal of securing the nation and allowing for free and fair elections.

However, it is the expressed platform of the Kerry campaign that they are not in fact in favor of reinstating the draft. Will this stated position evolve in the case of a Kerry victory? Only time and circumstance will tell.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
A list of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these bills

House Bill 163 - Sponsor Charles B. Rangel, - NY
Co-sponsors - Abercrombie, Neil - HI
Brown, Corrine-FL
Christensen, Donna M.-VI
Clay, Wm. Lacy-MO
Conyers, John, Jr.-MI
Cummings, Elijah E.-MD
Hastings, Alcee L.-FL
Jackson, Jesse L., Jr.-IL
Jackson-Lee, Sheila-TX
Lewis, John-GA
McDermott, Jim-WA
Moran, James P.-VA
Stark, Fortney Pete-CA
Velazquez, Nydia M.-NY
Norton, Eleanor Holmes-DC(w/drawn)


Senate Bill 89 - Sponsor Ernest F. Hollings SC
No co-sponsors

The full text of the bills can be found here and here

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Bleys]


Why am I not surprised to see Jim McDermitt on there?


When I was in the army, I remeber my superiors and older commerades who remeber the days of the draftee army. They told me that alot of draftees were lackluster, dopeheads, with no motivation or real desire to be in. It made the quality and morale of the army in general suffer.

My uncle was drafted into Vietnam. He was in bible college at the time. He told them specifically, that while we accepted his fate as a draftee, he asked to be trained as a chaplain's assistant. He said he loved his country and would serve it, but it was against everything in his moral being and beliefs to kill another human being. He said he would be more than willing to help minister to the soldiers in need, but killing was against his religous and moral beliefs.

They laughed, put him in the infantry, and set him off killing VC in the jungles. The first guy, as he puleld the trigger, dropped. My uncle threw down his weapon and ran. The sight of his own hand killing another person was too much overload. He had to be hospitalized when they found him three days later, he was a total wreck.

Is that very democratic? No, in my opinion it was an insult and a slap in the face of everything Americans cherish. Its sick.

The truth is, our army functions best when they have good training and discipline with many willing participants.

Intrepid is right. if we have to hold a gun to people's heads to force them in, we are overextended, and need to do something about it.

An army of the unwilling will serve no one, and create bigger problems.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Here is a suggestion: My father is a V. Vet. He served in the Special Opps. He was drafted.......well...he saw his number on tv so he went and registered of his own free will. Here is the catch to the draft. If you register before they come and get you, YOU get to pick where you go! So if you get your number called, register, and pick where you think you could fit in ie Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy or even a objector. You have a 90 percent chance of getting to go where you want. You'd be signing up as if it was your choice to do so and they dont really have a choice but to send you there. Good luck everyone! I for one cant serve. I have had surgery on both eyes for detached retina's (one bump in the head and i could be blinded for life!), I have back problems and asthma. I have an extreme hatred of guns and will not handle them. I will how ever have no objections of handling the computer equipment as long as i dont have to go through basic training......which would kill me.
so they might as well shoot me then.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join