1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reinstating the Draft

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Green Gaia, May 22, 2004.

  1. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,925
    $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

    Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

    The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

    Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

    Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

    I have been reading articles such as this one for months now on various independent media sights. Even mainstream publications such as Time and USAToday have reported on the idea of resurrecting the draft. It is not out of the realm of possiblity.

    I think that if the draft is announced, the reactions of citizens (even ones who support Bush) will be very telling. To some, it is OK to support the troops, and the conflict itself, as long as it is from the comfort of home. This will no doubt bring about controversy. However, it may also fuel a larger movement for true peace.

    I am not an advocate of the draft. To me, forced armed service is an abhorrent form of slavery, especially when the war is an illegal and immoral one. I do support using brains, rather than bombs. There are countless ways to serve your country and better the lives people (nationally and globally) without taking part in violence and oppression.
    I do think we can expect to hear more about this soon after the 2005 election.

    Many citizens' views change upon the prospect of actually being involved in the fighting - I've spoken to a few Bush supporters who have supported the war up until now, but when faced with the possibility of being drafted, they balk at the idea and say they would try their hardest not to go to war. As far as I'm concerned, this is typical of the same kind of American hypocrisy that got us into this fiasco in the first place.

    The fact that women would be included in the draft will also no doubt factor into the election, which I for one will be really interested to see. Women in combat has been such a long-standing debate. It's interesting that the same type of politicians who oppose women in combat for reasons such as physical strength would be the ones backing the draft reinstatement.

    Anyway, this is, of course, just my opinion! I'm interested to hear how everyone else feels about it. Do you think this a real possibilty?
     
  2. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I don't support the draft and definitely think military service should be a choice.
     
  3. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    I really doubt a draft will be reinstated, but it's possible.

    First of all, the war in Iraq is definitely not an illegal one. The fact that the U.N. security council voted down the resolution to use force in Iraq only means that U.N. troops could not be used in the war. It does not mean the U.N. considers the war illegal.

    Secondly, for there to be peace there must be justice. With barbaric and oppressive leaders like Saddam in power, there can be no justice, and therefore no peace. The war in Iraq isn't about creating oppression but destroying it. A freely elected representative government has a chance of being just and peaceful. Oppressive regimes like Saddam's do not.

    Maize--I agree with your arguments of using brains over bombs....when it comes to dealing with nations like Russia or China or Britain. But try using your "brains" to convince a madman not to be brutal to his citizens or pursue an expansionist foreign policy. Saddam, Al Capone, Hitler--they're not altruistic people like you and me--they only respect one thing, and that's power. Threatening their power with force, and actually making good on those threats when needed, is the only way of dealing with them.

    The question here is: are Americans (and the free world) willing to sacrifice for the freedom of other people, and for the sake of future generations--so that they can enjoy a world of free, peaceful, democracies? Or do we prefer to let oppression, genocide, and injustice go on and on in the remote parts of the world, and wait for these aggressive governments to directly affect us (ie the Taliban and 9/11)?

    Evil prevails when the men and women of free nations sit idly by and allow injustice, unwilling to make any sacrifice on the behalf of others.
     
  4. TheoGirl

    TheoGirl New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
    I happen to agree w/ Sprinkles on this one. Doubt there will be a draft. I agree with war when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. There is a price to pay for living in a free society - but then that nullifies the "free society" part when service is forced rather than optional. However, I offer a practical thought: If I were on the front lines, would I want my buddy to be someone who wants to be there next to me or someone who was forced to be there? Fortunately or unfortunately, bravery and courage are choices and cannot be forced upon someone. For the sake of the brave men and women already in service, I am against putting someone in service who doesnt want to be there.
     
  5. UNITED

    UNITED Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Ratings:
    +0
    Reinstating the draft seems to be a far fetched idea. I'm just a teenager, but I think that is crazy. It couldn't really happen I think because like Vietnam people don't want to go to far off places and die for something that's not even bothering them. If it ever happened I would try my best to get out of going. I plan to go to the Peace Corps soon to help other people. To me that sounds better than going to another country and killing people.
     
  6. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    I agree with United. I think the reinstatement of the draft is an incredibly far-fetched idea. Furthermore, I think such a law would be so unfavorable to the general population that Congress is likely to vote against the bill rather than loose public support for the war. As Maize pointed out, many of those in support of the war are only in support when they don't have to fight it themselves.

    And if it IS reinstated... well, if you can't run off to Canada, there's always France. :p I for one won't be going anywhere; I have scoliosis AND asthma. Minor... but it was enough to get my dad out of Vietnam and it should be enough for me as well.

    I like the idea of doing civilian service more. THAT I would not object to; there are ways to help other than by killing people.
     
  7. Ardhanariswar

    Ardhanariswar I'm back!

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Ratings:
    +66
    haha. i doubt it will happen too. but if it does, i hope that gay excuse works. though, half the military is gay i dont think it matters.

    ill just skip off to india and go into hiding like anne frank. i dont believe in war.
     
  8. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    Don't they have a "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy? Just tell them and they won't want you... :wink:
     
  9. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    A fate worse than death! :lol:

    Does the government even draft women, (athsma or not)? I was not aware that women had ever been drafted into combat or were even eligible, but correct me if I'm wrong.

    I would never be drafted either, in fact I can't even serve voluntarily...some people would consider this an asset, but I don't.

    But wouldn't you still be aiding and supporting the killing of other people indirectly?
     
  10. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,925
    They haven't in the past, but some think that since women's role in the military has grown since the draft was last used, that if the draft were reinstated, they may consider drafting women as well.
     
  11. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    In the past women have not been drafted. However, this particular bill is considering drafting women as well, either into military or civilian service: "A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." (WHAT other purposes?) http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

    Perhaps, or perhaps not. It is preferable to killing people because at least there is a chance I won't be helping kill people (I could, for example, be helping figure out ways to raise money to feed people... I don't know. Service for the furtherance of national defense does not necessarily have to have anything to do with agression). It doesn't mean I like ANY compulsory service... but I certainly would prefer to work in a capacity that does not directly involve killing people.
     
  12. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    It seems very doubtful that such a bill would ever get through both houses of the legislature, but I guess it is possible.

    Do you think it is right or wrong that women cannot be drafted? Is the military sexist, or realistic?
     
  13. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    I actually think it is right. Women demand equal rights... well, with equal rights must come equal responsibility. My only concern is that technically women are at a SLIGHT disadvantage physically, which could put them in GREATER danger than men in a military conflict... therefore, and for this reason only, I think women, if drafted, should be given the choice between combatant (military) and noncombatant (military or civilian) service.
     
  14. UNITED

    UNITED Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't necessarily believe in war. Only defend yourself, don't go lookng for a fight. Make peace or love, not hate. But with the draft, if it did happen, I would think that they would have to draft women. That would only be fair. Women are equal to men in society, so they should carry equal the burden. If I was drafted, and I didn't protest, I would be pissed off that I got drafted, yet some physically fit woman did not have to be drafted into some military situation. And so would anyone else.
     
  15. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I think we have to be careful about drafting a lot of young woman, because of childbearing. A large loss of young women in war would highly affect propagation.
     
Loading...