Milt Palacio

This is extremely scary stuff. We've all been saying that there's no telling what Bush will do if re-elected.

New information states he will have a military draft for 18-26 year old men and women. College students will NOT be exempt. He has gone as far as drafting legislation and setting aside funds already. The draft would take effect in June 2005 according to the current information.

Here is some information on it:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__draft.html

http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=143398

http://www.labournet.net/other/0403/draft1.html

Please pass this on to all your friends and family so they don't make a huge mistake of voting for Bush in November. The livelihood of our country will likely depend on it.

migamoo

Excuse me, what funds? Where did they come from? This country is sofar in debt it's a wonder people are actually able to get paid.

Milt Palacio

Government funds. $28 million from the defense budget. Read the articles.

JW77

Very interesting stuff. A bt misleading though. Both of those bills are sponsored by Democrats.

Guess both sides are trying to get in on the scare tactics.

Goonieforever

Honestly the draft is a very ugly, scary thing. I really hope it does NOT come to this. I will gladly pass along these articles.

TheAngel

This is total Bull*****. Enlistment in the military is up to the point that the air force and navy are switching almost 20,000 workers, sending them to be security forces in the Army instead of working under the air force and navy. This rumor has been floating for years but there's no truth to it at all. It's propeganda.

Milt Palacio

I pray to god it's not true.

I don't want to take the chance by re-electing Bush, though. I think he would be willing to sign off on those bills.

I would love to have a talk to the Democrats who are supporting those bills. Unbelievable.

alli balli

There have been rumors about the draft around for a long time...and although there really are bills trying to reinstate it, they've never seemed like they're going to go very far. Then again, like the articles pointed out, that perception could very well be just because there's no reelection for Bush to worry about if he's got another 4 years, and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

It's still scary, though. I'm turning 18 in June 2005. And in NO WAY do I want to serve in the military. I don't want to go into combat (unlikely anyway, I guess), I don't want to do office work. I want nothing to do with it. So here's to hoping it never passes.

Lexis

Excuse my English ignorance but can you tell me what exactly would be required for this bill to pass?

JW77

First it has to pass with a majority vote in both houses of congress...then it gets sent to the President. If the President signs it, it becomes a law. If the President doesn't agree, he can veto, but it can still be passed if it goes back and gets a two-thirds majority vote in congress.

UnsilentMajorty

The rationale behind the bill and why it is also being sponsored by Democrats is this:

The reason for the no college defferments being exempt is that this (in theory) encompasses a lot of the Congressmen/women's children as well as the Senate and of course, the President children as well if they are of age.

Ergo, in theory, if EVERYONE'S child -- instead of just the poor, inner-city minorities and rural Whites -- might be called up for active duty...

This will make the U.S. think much harder about rushing into "harm's way" -- as with Bush and Iraqi Freedom.

That's the rationale behind it.

The reality, is, however, that I am sure wealthy families and government personnel will always find ways to not send their children and the burden will always go to the general population and non-wealthy as it always has been.

So, the intent may have been a good one, but the execution may do just the exact opposite if it passes in my opinion.

And by the way...

This is not a "scare tactic".

A scare tatic is Vice President Dick Chaney telling voters that we are going to suffer an attack greater than 9/11 if John Kerry is elected.

THAT is a scare tactic. This bill is a form of balanced control... Even as ill-executed as it may turn out to be.

JW77

You're right, it's not a scare tactic. But if you're statement was directed at me...my comment was made in regard to this statement -

I suppose I could've made that more clear in my post though.

mh67511

The bill itself is not a scare tactic, but twisting the facts around and telling people that Bush is going to re-instate the draft IS a scare tactic.

The reality of the matter is that Bush really has nothing to do with this bill as of yet! It was NOT his idea one bit! Somebody here must be a mindreader, because I haven't heard Bush say a word about reinstating the draft...and I have yet to see someone posting a link to where Bush has said he supports HR163/S89.

The Universal National Service Act of 2003 was introduced on January of 2003, by Democrats. As of today, the House Bill has 16 DEMOCRAT co-sponsors and the Senate Bill has 1 DEMOCRAT co-sponsor.

http://congress.org/congressorg/issu...=108&size=full

http://congress.org/congressorg/bill...ss=108#summary

Let's be realistic. This bill has been in Congress for over 18 months, yet it only has only 1 Senate co-sponsor and 16 House co-sponsors. The odds of it actually passing are slim to none.

And if ANYTHING the topic should be titled "Democrat Senators want to Re-Instate the Draft."

Milt Palacio

I am only going by what the articles say. It was not my intention to scare or mislead people.

The articles say that Bush has been very quiet on the subject the past few months and that he plans on reinstating the draft if re-elected. I cannot vouch for the validity of the articles. Take what you want from them.

It is my PERSONAL belief that if Bush is re-elected, he will likely invade countries such as Iran or Syria and if so, he might find a draft neccessary to gain more troops. You may disagree.

ceilirose

Doesn't anyone think that if Bush is re-elected and the policy of pre-emptive strikes is part of the US national policy then the draft will have to be considered?

If North Korea, Iran and/or Syria become issues then where are the military people going to come from? In theory the NG is supposed to protect the country domestically and not be sent in such huge numbers overseas. The military is strained right now and people have blinders on if they can't see or even admit it.

Someone mentioned that enrollment is up in the military. Why aren't these troops being rotated to Iraq then? These people are serving over a year there and then are facing a return tour in the near future. Where are they going?

I agree with UM that it wouldn't be a good idea because we all know that the rich and connected will find ways to get their kids out of the draft. That's what happened during Vietnam and it would be sure to happen if the conflict in Iraq continues.

Another question is why would there even need to be a bill passed..couldn't a President sign an Executive Order to reinstate the draft?