I recently read (can’t find the link at the mo) that the US administration is looking to reintroduce a compulsory 2 years draft for all of national service in their armed forces.
Is that total rubbish? Has it a hope of being passed?
If not, I would be greatly interested in the effect it would have in terms of public support for various US miltary actions around the world.
Discuss…
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
I recently read (can’t find the link at the mo) that the US administration is looking to reintroduce a compulsory 2 years draft for all of national service in their armed forces.
Is that total rubbish? Has it a hope of being passed?
If not, I would be greatly interested in the effect it would have in terms of public support for various US miltary actions around the world.
Discuss…
[/quote]
That is BS as congress does not have the will to pass this.
If Israel bombs Iran then all bets are off and it looks like that will happen if their conflict with Hezbollah keeps going on its projected path.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
I recently read (can’t find the link at the mo) that the US administration is looking to reintroduce a compulsory 2 years draft for all of national service in their armed forces.
Is that total rubbish? Has it a hope of being passed?
If not, I would be greatly interested in the effect it would have in terms of public support for various US miltary actions around the world.
Discuss…
[/quote]
I’d be interested in knowing exactly where you read such a thing.
Personally, I highly doubt it.
Total rubbish. A fringe democrat or two actually tried to get discussion of it on the House floor to stir the pot before the last general election but it backfired – since they opposed the draft BY SPONSORING A BILL TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT.
(Elitists like to make all sorts of fun of the intelligence of the American voter but… c’mon… is it any surprise that THAT didn’t work out as planned?)
There were some Dems that were talking about this a few years ago as a political ploy.
It isn’t going to happen.
I’ll hunt down the link and get back to ya
If it is true, it is a bad idea and needs to be reconsidered. We have enough problems in the military with people that volunteered to join. Not trying to sound like the crusty old guy, but the kids coming in today think they are owed something for actually showing up for work. I get asked at least once a week why they have to come to work if the have nothing on their schedule. And understand on the operations side of the house it is lax, maintenance is a different story, they work for a living. But the last thing we need is to have to deal with people being forced in. I can only imagine the negative effect on morale and the divisions it would cause.
from www.globalresearch.ca - Somehow it only came to my attention last week.
Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced on 14 February 2006 a bill in the US Congress which requires:
“all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”
The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age.
While there was some media coverage of Rangel’s initiative prior to the formal introduction of the bill, the matter has not been mentioned by the US media since it was introduced in February. There has been a deafening silence: since February 2006, not a single article or editorial has appeared in print on the Universal National Service Act of 2006.
Neither has it been the object of public debate. The bill has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Ironically, in previous discussion leading up the bill, Rangel’s initiative to restore the draft was described as “an anti-war tactic”.
“Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel’s rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society.”
Despite Rangel’s antiwar resolve, the bill supports Washington’s stated objective to extend the war into new frontiers and to ultmately send an entire generation of young Americans to fight an illegal, and unjust war. It is worth noting in this regard that the Neoconservative Project for a New American Century calls for increasing active duty strength from 1.4 to 1.6 million.
The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the “Neighborhood Watch Teams” and the “Volunteer Police Service” established in partnership with local law enforcement. (see http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf )
While there is at present significant opposition to the bill on both sides of the House, the US military is overextended and lacks the manpower to carry out its global war agenda. This shortage of military personnel is blatantly obvious in Iraq, where the occupation forces are meeting fierce resistance.
The situation regarding the draft could also change if the war were to be extended into Iran. In which case, the substance of this bill could indeed be adopted to meet the manpower requirements of the US military.
History of the Bill
This is the second time Rep. Charles Rangel introduces his controversial bill.
In January 2003, HR 163 was submitted in the House.
It was voted upon and defeated in the House in October 2003, on the grounds that it had not been sent for committee hearings. However, it was suggested at the time that the Republican-controlled House wanted to defeat the bill, to squash rumors that Bush would reintroduce the draft if reelected.
“In spite of adamant denial of draft rumors, Internet and campus campaigners had trumpeted the bill as evidence of a “secret plan” to reinstate the draft in case President Bush is re-elected.”
Rangel proposes this every year. And every year it gets the same amount of attention – some fringe internet articles and scare emails, and then it’s ignored.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Rangel proposes this every year. And every year it gets the same amount of attention – some fringe internet articles and scare emails, and then it’s ignored.[/quote]
Fair enough. Just wondered.
1–There is no shortage of manpower in Iraq. The majority of people dying there are dying on convoys that are bringing ice cream, DVD’s, and other creature comforts to the thousands of unneccessary pogues that are there in the first place.
2–While the draft idea is stupid, wouldn’t it be a smashing idea if the Republicans (being the good guys snicker) showed they were serious by introducing a bill to disband the selective service? I understand that it is a democrat that introduced the draft but somehow republicans take the heat for it. Seems to me that if a republican introduced such a bill a great many people would be more comfortable when they aren’t registering themselves at 18.
Mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
1–There is no shortage of manpower in Iraq. The majority of people dying there are dying on convoys that are bringing ice cream, DVD’s, and other creature comforts to the thousands of unneccessary pogues that are there in the first place.
Mike[/quote]
Great point. The force protection dogma and these massive city-sized bases with Baskin Robbins and movie theaters are absurd. But getting ourselves a better tooth-to-tail ratio (i.e. way more infantry) probably isn’t happening anytime soon.
I have read several pieces that quote Rangel as wanting a draft so that the ‘poor’ won’t have to fight our battles alone.
But honestly - do we really want a bunch of rich kids traipsing through the desert with guns?
Let’s think clearly, people. :>
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have read several pieces that quote Rangel as wanting a draft so that the ‘poor’ won’t have to fight our battles alone.
But honestly - do we really want a bunch of rich kids traipsing through the desert with guns?
Let’s think clearly, people. :>[/quote]
Good point, rich guys traipsing through Texas with guns tend to shoot each other by accident.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
1–There is no shortage of manpower in Iraq. The majority of people dying there are dying on convoys that are bringing ice cream, DVD’s, and other creature comforts to the thousands of unneccessary pogues that are there in the first place.
[/quote]
This type of shit is ramapant in almost everything the federal government is involved.
[quote]
2–While the draft idea is stupid, wouldn’t it be a smashing idea if the Republicans (being the good guys snicker) showed they were serious by introducing a bill to disband the selective service? I understand that it is a democrat that introduced the draft but somehow republicans take the heat for it. Seems to me that if a republican introduced such a bill a great many people would be more comfortable when they aren’t registering themselves at 18.
Mike[/quote]
I wonder how much money is wasted every year for this.
I’ve read many times from different american generals that they don’t want a draft, as an all-volunteer army is the best kind of army you can have.
What they did mention they’d like is less civilian meddling in the running of various operations (ie, give us the goals and let us do our jobs) and support better aligned with their demands (ie, give us what we ask for, not what you think we need, or what some corporation told you we needed.)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have read several pieces that quote Rangel as wanting a draft so that the ‘poor’ won’t have to fight our battles alone.
But honestly - do we really want a bunch of rich kids traipsing through the desert with guns?
Let’s think clearly, people. :>[/quote]
Very true…
[quote]pookie wrote:
…support better aligned with their demands (ie, give us what we ask for, not what you think we need, or what some corporation told you we needed.)
[/quote]
I hate that we spend so much money on weapons systems that are not needed.
Unfortunately many of these generals pimp for these weapons systems.
Generals are often as crooked as politicians in this regard.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
…support better aligned with their demands (ie, give us what we ask for, not what you think we need, or what some corporation told you we needed.)
I hate that we spend so much money on weapons systems that are not needed.
Unfortunately many of these generals pimp for these weapons systems.
Generals are often as crooked as politicians in this regard.[/quote]
Yup. If a fraction of research money that goes into the friggin air wing (of which we already have complete and total air dominance of anyone in the world) were placed into caring for the grunt on the ground then you would see us all wearing breathable dragonscale armor instead of hard ceramic plates. Have you ever seen two Marines in flak jackets and kevlars fight? It is like watching two retards fucking. We would have comm that works well instead of operating on $50 Wal Mart squad radios that we buy ourselves. The grunt could be a fearsome object indeed.
Wait no, I lied that isn’t true at all because these same officers are the ones who call everything hazing. My little brother was recently informed by his MEU commander that making his Marines say “Aye corporal” in agknowledging an order is hazing. The military makes room for the pussies and brings the quality of the entire branch down in fear of a phone call from someone’s mother.
Truly however this all boils down to the fact that a large percentage of American military officers are cowards and politicians who are more concerned with their next promotion than the welfare of their Marines. This is why the men who are worth a damn leave in droves. This leaves those who are there because they are losers and need the job security and those who are there for the inflated sense of respect a few extra chevrons “earn” them.
Mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
If a fraction of research money that goes into the friggin air wing (of which we already have complete and total air dominance of anyone in the world) were placed into caring for the grunt on the ground then you would see us all wearing breathable dragonscale armor instead of hard ceramic plates. Have you ever seen two Marines in flak jackets and kevlars fight? It is like watching two retards fucking. We would have comm that works well instead of operating on $50 Wal Mart squad radios that we buy ourselves. The grunt could be a fearsome object indeed.[/quote]
On this I will agree. Grunts are on the same level as the company worktruck, money only get’s put into them when absolutely necessary.
[quote]
Wait no, I lied that isn’t true at all because these same officers are the ones who call everything hazing. My little brother was recently informed by his MEU commander that making his Marines say “Aye corporal” in agknowledging an order is hazing. The military makes room for the pussies and brings the quality of the entire branch down in fear of a phone call from someone’s mother. [/quote]
Sad but true. Sad but true.