It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bush wants the Draft? I think not.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by RedOctober90
No it's the neo-con conservatives who want a draft.

Then why are the sponsors of the bills Democrats?

There is pending legislation in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate (twin
bills: S89 and HR 163) which not only propose the draft itself but will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as Spring 2005,
just after the 2004 Presidential election. This plan, among other
things, raises the age range for draftees to 18-26, eliminates higher
education as a shelter, and includes women in the draft. Also,
crossing into Canada is no longer possible after a treaty over this
very matter was signed by both the U.S. and Canada in 2002.


"Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of
Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services..."

So, we have

Charles Rangel (D, NY)
Jim McDermott (D, WA)
John Conyers (D, MI)
John Lewis (D, GA)
Fortney Stark (D, CA)
Neil Abercrombie (D, HI)

Eh...see a pattern here? All six sponsors of this bill are Democrats,
not one is a Republican. So Democrats birthed and sponsored the bill
in order to feed the bloodlust of Rebpublican/Bush haters!

Not only that, but...

"The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Charles Rangel, a liberal Democrat
from New York who represents Harlem. Even he admitted that his bill
won't pass. He said he introduced it to get people to discuss who is
doing the fighting in Iraq.

"The burdens of war should be fairly shared across all segments of our
society and not fall disproportionately on poor communities as they do
now," Rangel said in a written statement Wednesday."

"It's a draft bill...made to create a big stink about "poor" people
and minorities in Iraq. It's a freakin' publicity stunt!

Elsewhere in the article...

"There is a kernel of truth to the allegation -- there is a bill
pending that would restart the draft. But the Bush administration
opposes it, as do Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and the
leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress.
Everyone remotely in a position to know is quite sure that the bill is
going nowhere.

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who
believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the
draft," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in April."

As the final nail in the coffin of this idea, here is the home page of
the U.S. Selective Service System homepage itself!

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet,
Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S.
Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather,
the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the
President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been
ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and
the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that
there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely
contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on
any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective
Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by
law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25."

So, there you have it! In short, everyone has been duped by low-life
political opportunists into taking a publicity stunt by a
attention-mongering Congressman seriously. There is no chance this
"draft" will ever go through, Bush does not support it, and it was
actually a group of Democrats in Congress who proposed the bill!

[edit on 9/28/2004 by ThunderCloud]

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:34 PM
We need a professional miltary and it will stay that way, how you ask will the recruitment goals be met? Simple, there are still patriots out there, not everyone has jumped onto the michael moore bandwagon. There are those that understand that our way of life is at stake and we need to make a stand......

Understand, we do not need an army to occupy the world.....militarily is is not needed. Troops are in Iraq for a reason, get a globe and look around it.

Odds of a draft?

Mush less than 25%, only thing that would require it would be an all out war and that is unlikely...

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by heelstone
Isn't the U.S. military already pushed to its limits regarding the amount of active duty soldiers?
[edit on 13-9-2004 by heelstone]

Not really, we still have a lot of troops in Europe that can be called upon if need be.

Also what Edsinger said ^

[edit on 28-9-2004 by Muaddib]

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in