Here is the counter (for the second time). This is not creating a draft. Sorry, GV76, but even your own liberals agree with me on this one. Your point is utterly obliterated. Your goal in starting this thread was to make Bush look bad by creating a draft -- a very unpopular policy move. Wow, did that ever backfire!
Of course it isn't. As GV stated, it is one of the necessary first steps to implementing the draft, as the thread title implies. You have one of the worst cases of selective perception I have ever seen. I guess you are the naked guy in Times Square, huh?
"Military draft to be ready by June 15, 2005" And the selective service is preparing for just that. Are you incapable of interpreting a simple sentance?
Dude, I never said there would be a draft. I said they would be *ready* for a draft. This is the first step toward conscription, as I repeated numerous times. You can attempt to derail this thread all you want -- but the facts remain -- Bush mandated that draft board positions be filled and that the Selective Service be ready for a draft by mid-2005.
In essence, the SS is expected to be able to have a plan such that if there IS conscription, then those drafted are ready for mobilization in 75 days or less. This exact same process exists today and existed when Clinton was president, only the requirement was 6 months + 13 days. 13 days was the requirement in 1979, later, an additional 6 months was added. As I read this, Bush is asking for the process to be sped up. During times of unrest (regardless of who causes it), it is a reasonable request to make sure the conscripts (IF there are any) are ready to deploy in 75 days as opposed to 193 days. To me this appears to be much ado about nothing. As I see it, as things exist today and the forseeable future, it does not concern me even though I have a draft eligible son and son-in-law. Regardless of this budgetary item, Congress could restart conscription today and could have restarted it at any point since Jimmy Carter reinstituted draft registration.
I'm not old enough to know the ins-and-outs of the draft. Who exactly calls the draft? Just the President, or does it require Congress to vote on it? I could see Bush possibly trying to institute a draft in the future if it was just up to him, but I think it would be political suicide for any Congressmen that agreed - barring a nuke strike in the US or something terrible like that.
I really need more info before thinking there's anything newsworthy there. The Salon article didn't seem to think it's a big deal. There are a couple of draft bills in Congress that are a lot more noteworthy.
Congress has to pass and the President has to sign. (If it gets to that look for a non-commital "voice vote.") If I recall correctly, here are the order of ages of men who would be up for the draft... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 18 And here's my favorite FAQ from the SS site... ________ How does the Military Selective Service Act apply to individuals who have had a sex change? Individuals who are born female and have a sex change are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have a sex change are still required to register. In the event of a resumption of the draft, males who have had a sex change can file a claim for an exemption from military service if they receive an order to report for examination or induction.
While it may be noteworthy the title of this thread is certainly misleading. The article indicates that the President wants a plan to have conscriptees ready for deployment 75 days after a draft is called for. Again, this exact same thing exists today, but the length of time is around 190 days. The draft is ready today. Congress could reenact the draft today. If they did, draftees would be expected to be ready for assigment within 190 days or so. Congress could have reenacted the draft anytime since 1979. The title should be something along the lines of "Draftess may be expected to be ready for combat within 75 days of draft renactment by Senate beginning in 2005, unlike the current 190 days"
First off, my father isn't quite that old. He joined the Air Force in 1968, not the 1950s. But the point is that worse isn't coming to worse. We're not in dire need to defend our country from imminent demise. We're in a situation when the volunteer army should work perfectly well to fight overseas fights that have very little to do with securing our own nation. As a matter of fact, if the United States were in such danger, it's entirely likely that a draft still wouldn't be needed as people would likely volunteer in greater numbers than they do now. But there is another bigger point, Americans don't react well to being forced to do something they don't want to do. It's something that borders on being unAmerican. We like to control our own destinies. We especially don't like to have to go fight in a war that we already don't agree with and that many believe doesn't do anything to make our country safer. And we don't like to send our sons to die (and the fact that daugthers are exempt seems to be a violation of Equal Protection. I don't know why NOW doesn't stand up to demand that women be required to register with selective service) in wars that look like the adminstration's personal grudge. And I promise there are far more people who feel as I do about a draft than feel as you do. The volunteer army has worked very well for thirty years now. It can continue to work just fine. And if the draft is reinstated, I know President Bush will be untouchable (since it will be after re-election), but the members of Congress will not be. It will be political suicide should it come to pass. I know we're not looking at a situation that's inevitable. We may never see a reinstatement of the draft, but the fact that the administration is taking the effort to upgrade the draft machinery and urgently fill all the draft board positions for the first time in over twenty years coupled with this Administration's tendency to play fast and loose with the truth from time to time and the saber-rattling in regards to countries such as Iran while we're seemingly getting bogged down in Iraq while still fighting in Afghanistan makes one suspicious that such plans to reinstate the draft are afoot, or at least on the list of options.
mrpaige, you make an excellent point. The point I was trying to make, in the previous couple of posts, is that the volunteer military is getting stretched thin, reservists are getting called up in larger and larger numbers for tours much longer than most had ever anticipated facing, and there is being little done to address the need to enlarge the current volunteer force to meet current and future needs. (whether what they are doing now should be what they are doing now in Iraq is something for other threads). Billions are being spent on B-2 bombers and Nimitz-class carriers, but way too little on military pay, benefits, and increasing their numbers. So far, even if it may have been tongue in cheek, you are the only person, other than GreenVegan, to respond to my question... Will you support recinding the Bush tax cuts and pay higher taxes (and I'm talking about both) to pay for a larger, more capable and better treated volunteer military to cope with what Bush has decided to do in Iraq? Because clearly, what we have now is having problems dealing with the Iraq deployment, the remaining (and too small, imo) force in Afghanistan, and possible conflicts with other countries in the Middle East region and Northeast Asia.(who knows for sure what Bush is planning for next, or what may unexpectedly pop up) Oh, and Trader... I haven't heard your response. Do you have one worth reading?
If forcing some Medical Professionals into the service saves lives, then so be it. Will we ever get into this situation? Who knows, most likely not, but anyone that thinks taking precautions to ensure life saving treatment of injured troops on the battlefield is a bad thing, then I really have nothing left to say to you. And why they are putting this in place now? Seems like worst case scenario planning. I think your paranoia has gotten the best of you. Or most likely, just another reason to start a Bush bashing thread, cause god knows we can’t get enough of them.
No, I think taking away people's right to self-determination is a bad thing. I can point to all sorts of things that would save lives that would also infringe on the rights of American citizens. If that's the simple standard, then we really need to start making some changes in the United States to make it safer. I didn't realize saving lives was the number one priority of the U.S. Government, ahead of those liberties those very service men have fought and died for over the years. I mean, Hillary was savagely attacked when she tried to put together her health plan because it would take away the rights of physicians to choose where they wanted to work and the amount of money they could make. Drafting them into the military would do the exact same thing. I didn't support those ideas when a Clinton came up with them, I am never going to support them now. It's not about not wanting our military to get proper medical care as much as you would like to pretend that's what it's all about. It's about Americans having rights, and among those are rights of self-determination. And that means not making them do things they don't want to do. That goes for making medical personnel go work for the government (which is very socialist) or making kids join the military against their will. If the government wants more medical personnel or more soliders, they'd better find a way to make the free market work to fill those needs. And why they are putting this in place now? Seems like worst case scenario planning. I think your paranoia has gotten the best of you. Or most likely, just another reason to start a Bush bashing thread, cause god knows we can’t get enough of them. It may be worst-case scenario planning. Or it could be a sign of things to come. Given that this Administration has not exactly been honest with the public, we can't help but be on-guard when things like this come out. And when the Republican administration starts abandoning the very principles that make them Republicans (faith in the free market, faith in self-determination, etc), Republicans like me are going to be concerned.
Yeah people who have done the work and gotten that kind of education shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves. If the govt. feels that medical practitioners are needed who are they to disagree. That's giving them one freedom too many.
Well I don't want to pay taxes, abide by traffic laws, or fear being charged with assault when I pull them out their car and beat the sheit out them after them giving me the bird on the road . But if I want to live in this society, I have to make a contribution and follow laws, just as you liberals who love to tax and spend other people's money. You are basically telling them how much they can take home. We all do things in this society we do not want to do, and live with it. Your allowing your obession with Bush to now diminish whatever common sense you did have. Not a good combination to have when your attempting to try and influence the neurtral parties. But thats the glaring problems of the left.
Well you can't have it both ways. You want to say you live in the land of the free, then you must pay the price. Maybe it's time you and others actually revist your actual contribution to this society. I'm just having a hard time understanding how the supposed "men" in this country (assuming you are a man) can whine like such babies over a worst case scenerio planning. Are you losing sleep over this? Please tell me your not.
