I got this e-mail the other day... a forward from a friend.
Starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about.
This literally effects everyone since we all have or know children that
will have to go if this bill passes. There is pending legislation in
the house and senate (companion bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time
the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring,
2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.
If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages 18
- 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no
longer
be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an
agreement with the Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting
to dodge the draft to stay within it's borders. This bill also includes
the extension of military service for all those that are
currentlyactive.
The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now,
while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this
is needed immediately. Details and links follow. This plan, among other
things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in
the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been made very
difficult.
Actions:
Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all
the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. . . And let your
children know - - it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice
for change! We all serve the country we love in ways that build a
powerful
and respected nation. Some examples... teaching, farming, caring for
our
elderly and disabled, building homes and sewing clothes.
This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this
website: http://thomas.loc.gov/ < http://thomas.loc.gov/ >
Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for
you to read. It is less than two pages long. If you go to the select
service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the
reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of
terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will effect
our
undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren. Please take the
time
to write your congressman and let them know how you feel about this
legislation.
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov
Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't
telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers
and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this
important story.
The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service
system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early
as June 15, 2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March 31,
2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for
activation. Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the
Selective Service System 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
permanent
state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice
but to draft.
Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and ask them to oppose
these
bills. We must voice our concerns and create the world we want to live
in for our children and grandchildren.
ID:275720
 Oct 6 2004, 10:48 am
|
|
As Kunark said, that is all a lie. First of all, there were a few grammar/miss-spellings in that E-Mail which may not mean anything, but they always check for that stuff and make sure it is perfect. Also, this is not 1200 AD. You cannot force people to recruit (that is illegal now and I doubt that law will ever be passed if it is true). Also, having more military people will not stop terrorism.
It even says make the world a better place? How? By making the world join the military to give their lives away when they can be very smart and make a nice living for themselves? I mean, I, and a majority of the other people would give their lives for this country if we were asked too. I know I definitely will (as in joining the military to help out the war). Terrorism will never stop, and they know it, so that cannot be true. | |
Kujila posted about this a couple of months ago. This is a bogus rumor that someone decided to send around to influence the election (at least to sway people who believe silly chain e-mails). Whether the original poster of the chain letter misinterpreted what was going on--as is likely enough--or was just plain maliciously distorting the truth, I don't know. Probably the story just got filtered through article after commentator after blog after blog until someone thoroughly off their gourd picked up and ran with this version of the story, at which point they or somebody else turned it into the e-mail. Such is the life of an urban myth.
Here's a quote from the snopes.com page: As reflected in the message quoted above, the draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. beween the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service's advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both these bills were introduced not by legislators genuinely seeking to reinstate the draft but by Democrats seeking to make an anti-war statement, and they languished in committee for 21 months before Republicans brought the House version to the floor and overwhelmingly defeated it in October 2004.According to the link in that paragraph, S.89 was introduced by none other than Fritz Hollings (D-SC), who for over a decade now has had the arms of the RIAA and MPAA moving his mouth. That man almost never saw a bonehead idea he didn't like. And since he announced retirement a while back, and was probably planning to when he introduced the bill, he had nothing politically to lose by introducing it. The Republican move to put its House counterpart up for a vote so it could be shot down was probably in response to that e-mail, to get the bill to stop being a thorn in their sides. As for the prospects of the bill, it is of course a political loser on both sides of the aisle. Besides, it makes bad sense. The modern US armed forces operate on a volunteer basis for good reason. The amount of training it takes to be a soldier in a truly modern military force is high, so draftees would be far less than ideal in that capacity. Most military sources have said as much. Lummox JR | |
www.sss.gov
Quote "On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 - 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate." Pwned. | |
GokuDBZ3128 wrote:
As Kunark said, that is all a lie. First of all, there were a few grammar/miss-spellings in that E-Mail which may not mean anything, but they always check for that stuff and make sure it is perfect. Also, this is not 1200 AD. You cannot force people to recruit (that is illegal now and I doubt that law will ever be passed if it is true). The draft is illegal now only because it is not authorized by law. However we have had a draft many times in US history, most recently in the Vietnam war. It was a mistake in that conflict primarily because there was never sufficient political will to win. Why commit so many troops if you're not going to put them in a position to be as effective as possible? Also, having more military people will not stop terrorism. That's not necessarily true, though it's not necessarily false either. A stronger military presence on the ground in various places may or may not help, and might do some good if draftees were used in low-risk scenarios like setting up new schools, etc. A lot of the work being done in Iraq presently is more construction than combat. Lummox JR | |
Why would anyone even send this e-mail? Look at the current war. We have about 1,000 casualties TOTAL. Then look at our military, we have a surplus of what, 18,000 people? Those numbers don't add up. Plus, women will NOT be drafted. Plain and simple, women will not be drafted into military positions. Our military thinks of women in the military as a distraction, and we do not allow women into combative roles. Women tend to be transporters, and other support. And don't even start with this "gender equality" [expletive deleted]. Men and women have never, and will never be equal. They should be, but they aren't, women will never be affected by the draft.
| |
We would have had 10 casualties but we decided to attack a city that was supporting us and that we were freeing. Dunno' why, I guess George W. Bush (who I am still voting for) thought it would be cool or something.... Then we ended up getting 900 casualties.
Oh yeah, and if a women fired a gun she'd be like "OUCH! I broke a nail...." Then she'd be running to the nearest "Tiffany's Nails" shop in Iraq just to get her ass blown off. | |
Hate to sound like one of those heroic, "stereotypist bashers", but not many woman are actually like that. Plus, women don't really break their nails that often. :P
You've seen in all the cliche-ish movies, how the army women are super-strict with their six pack and screaming voice! And anyone who watches TV knows it's real! >.> | |
That kind of woman wouldn't make it through training.
Plus, I'm not saying women aren't on the front line because they aren't capable. I think they are capable, I just think the male population of the united states is somewhat sexist. We are the reason they aren't on the front line, not they. | |
I don't know...if women were forced to be drafted, you'd have all sorts of problems like 8 months into the campaign, women getting sent back home while having a baby on the battle feild.
Lots of things like that- would "women's problems" really be that useful while camping out in the middle of a ditch in Vietnam? | |
Yeah, that reminds me of the comedy movie "In The Army Now". I love that movie.
Oh yeah, and did you know Pauly Shore is finally coming out with a new movie?! He wrote, directed, and produced it himself. He payed for the entire thing (I love Pauly Shore, he is one of the funniest actors). | |
Ter13 wrote:
That kind of woman wouldn't make it through training. Actually - I don't believe women are capable of certain properties associated with war. For starters - there are worse things you can to do a woman captive than a man. Two - most women simply aren't physically strong enough to engage in hand to hand combat with a grown man whose had battle experience. And, three - as stated in other posts: women have more issues concerning health & the health of others. | |
True on the physical part but with enough training I'm sure most women could be more effective as those 120 pound soldiers you see with the military issue glasses.
| |
I just had to delete a subthread. Please try to keep the flaming off the forums. Thanks.
GokuDBZ3128, you're not exempt from that. I only left your post alone because it has some decent replies. | |
Thank you.
I was also going to contact an administrater to ask if they can delete these posts, but, you saved me some time. =P | |
It is here I agree and disagree with you, being a sexist/feminist male (*sigh*). Women are a danger on the field. Not because of themselves, but because of males on the field. They are directly at danger of rape by their fellow soldiers, or even the enemies. Though, I do disagree to some degree. Men can be raped too. As a matter of fact, the spaniards did it all the time, as did the romans. Sodomy is the quickest way to demean any male. (Don't start ant "What about gay people" threads, rape is rape, and as hard as it is to believe for some of you, gay people DO have morals.) I don't agree with it, the forced sodomy thing, but it happens. And just because we don't have women on the front line doesn't mean they don't get captured. There was a woman from Kansas (my state) who was captured during the iraq conflict. She was beaten, raped, and tortured for a good month. You know what her job was? She was a transport. She was driving carrier trucks.
Rape happens during war, it isn't right, but neither is war. War isn't a chessmatch, it's not a cool, clean game. It's messy, dirty and immoral. Bad things happen during war, and not just killing. If you go to war, there are sacrifices made. No exceptions. Point is, women can willingly enlist, not into combat roles, but into nearly as dangerous roles. Grow up, women can handle just as much, and in some areas more than men. If we put women with our troops, the men aren't going to get cooties and start hanging drapes in their foxholes. Men are around women all the time in the normal world, added stress may exist, but it IS possible to control yourself. None of this crap about "It's the horomones!". | |
So, as it turns out, Kerry tonight mentioned adding 40,000 troops to the war effort. Bush, however claims he wants the ammount of troops to stay about the same.
If Kerry is in office, there is more of a chance of a draft than Bush, though still, it is somewhat unlikely. | |
Look at www.snopes.com.