Mandatory Draft in House & Senate for 2005 (ages 18-26)

The draft should be re-instated. Draft cards need to be sent to all who is eligible for service according to their party affiliation, in alphabetical order!

JUST KIDDING!! In this day and age, we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves. That includes everyone. We should follow Israel's policy of conscription! That means EVERYONE! Be good for our country!

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by Jemison

I really don't understand how it is that in one sentence people say how stupid Bush is and in the next they say that Bush has manipulated people to do his dirty work so that he doesn't look like the bad guy. You can't have it both ways. A dumb person is not capable of being able to pull off the type of things that Bush is being accused of.

Jemison

It's the "John Kerry Syndrome". Some libs think President Bush is an imbecile, other libs think he is a genius. Therefore, the libs here push both sides of the ridiculous argument, contradiction themselves on a regular basis. It's exactly what Kerry does on a DAILY basis by trying to be all things to all people, take both sides of every argument, and flip flop between his many sides as the audience requires. I think the AMA is going to classify it as a mental disorder soon. The only known cure is hysterical laughter by coherent persons who live in the REAL world...

Haha, look for another three letter word on a list of pschiatric diseases. Dfd, democrat flip-flop disorder.

Did anyone actually read the bill?

If you do, you will realize that use of the word "draft" is misleading.

It is mandatory service for all citizens. Some countries already do this. It is stating that everyone will have to serve (either military or public service) between the ages of 18 and 26.

It doesn't grandfather out people who are already in that group.
Now the bill has been in both houses since I believe 2002 (might have changed slightly) but if something happens to make it pass, everyone you know aged 23-26 would probably get called in immediately and the younger individuals would slowly be filtered in until the program becomes regular and everyone can choose their dates.

It is not just a draft, it wouldn't be temporary. It is completely different growing up knowing you need to go do this service or suddenly being called away from family.

I would hope there is a clause (it says that no law outside the bill itself can exclude you and the bill lists no such thing) that a child's only parent can't be taken, but then again I don't think it is fair to take either parent from a child like that.

Originally posted by blanketgirl
Did anyone actually read the bill?

If you do, you will realize that use of the word "draft" is misleading.

It is mandatory service for all citizens. Some countries already do this. It is stating that everyone will have to serve (either military or public service) between the ages of 18 and 26.

It doesn't grandfather out people who are already in that group.
Now the bill has been in both houses since I believe 2002 (might have changed slightly) but if something happens to make it pass, everyone you know aged 23-26 would probably get called in immediately and the younger individuals would slowly be filtered in until the program becomes regular and everyone can choose their dates.

It is not just a draft, it wouldn't be temporary. It is completely different growing up knowing you need to go do this service or suddenly being called away from family.

I would hope there is a clause (it says that no law outside the bill itself can exclude you and the bill lists no such thing) that a child's only parent can't be taken, but then again I don't think it is fair to take either parent from a child like that.

They haven't been too family friendly while calling up the reservists....I halfway expect them to call up both parents, and drop the kids off at the grandparents house on their way out of town. Interestly enough, it would be the president who decides just what those non-military people serving would do, and since they are drafted, you could probably be living in NY and find yourself crossing a picket line in TX or something.....got to admit, if done correctly, it would give industry alot of free, gov't subsidized labor! And, what a great strike breaker it would be!! Of course, if you're a 25 year old telecommunications worker, you just might find yourself in Iraq laying comminications cable also, once all their contracted companies bail out on them.

Maybe that is the true purpose for something like that then... cheap labor.
It's one way to keep US jobs in the US I suppose...

I don't think the contractors will bail- the gov. pays well and generally they are efficient (once you get down the 50 forms and who to call, etc.) If you are into construction or contracting, you know this is rare.
It's also easy for them to get young, poor people to ship out on the spot to make $50k/year. I have a cousin who thinks Haliburton is his dream come true, and the gov will pay the corp. 80k for him to be there, he gets 50k and everyone in the chain is happy. Otherwise he's living in central Florida working wherever he can for @25k/year.

Originally posted by dawnstar
got to admit, if done correctly, it would give industry alot of free, gov't subsidized labor! And, what a great strike breaker it would be!! Of course, if you're a 25 year old telecommunications worker, you just might find yourself in Iraq laying comminications cable also, once all their contracted companies bail out on them.