U.S. residents worried about the Draft

[dlh6213]

United States citizens who are worried about the Draft being reinstated should read this.

As you may or may not know, nearly two years ago (Jan. 2003), Democrat Charles Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the Draft. It would have required all citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve (male and female) for two years.

On 10/05/04, a roll-call vote was held. The bill was defeated by a count of 402 to 2, with Rangel himself voting against it.

So, if you were worried about the Draft being reinstated, don't be. There are no plans in the forseeable future to reinstate it.

[Alcides]

Thank goodness. I would hate to have to take someone's life. I would be so miserable.

Alcides.

[bluedos82]

I was watching Channel 1 today (its something that the school has; the news for kids kinda thing)
And I heard BOTH Kerry and Bush say:

No Draft is needed. The Draft will NOT be reinstated during MY presidency!

[alc6379]

There really isn't a need for the draft right now. Does anyone see a need for one? I'm kind of at a loss to see why we'd need a draft, as there's not really any particular area where we can't handle ourselves, IMHO.

As much as I love America, if a bill like the one you described actually did come to pass, I'd be moving to Japan or something. It's one thing to instate a draft, where people are called up to fight, but what you've described seems a little different. I think the word for that is conscription?

[Toba]

I never thought there would be a draft - and now I'm sure there won't be. We don't need one.

[MikeAR]

There really isn't a need for the draft right now. Does anyone see a need for one? I'm kind of at a loss to see why we'd need a draft, as there's not really any particular area where we can't handle ourselves, IMHO.

Have you watched the news within the past 6 months? Many military strategists and political scientists suggest that atleast 200,000-300,000 troops, 3x the current numbers. I oppose the draft, as it's against the whole concept of choice, but I can understand why we'd need it.

If Bush hadn't screwed us up in the first place, then we'd never have this issue. We'll also be needing more troops once he starts invading more countries (my bet is Syria next). There's also the fact that Afghanistan is going to Hell, so soon we'll need another 10,000 or so troops.

[dlh6213]

... If Bush hadn't screwed us up in the first place, then we'd never have this issue... ...There's also the fact that Afghanistan is going to Hell, so soon we'll need another 10,000 or so troops.

Screwed up how? You should read the WMD report before making a claim like that:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Also, Afghan is to soon hold it's first democratic elections.

[alc6379]

Screwed up how? You should read the WMD report before making a claim like that:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Also, Afghan is to soon hold it's first democratic elections.

Exactly. I don't want to argue talking points or anything, but most analysts, whether they admit it, or even realize it, tend to have a negative slant (note, I could have said "Liberal", but I didn't). So, to say that we need 3x more troops than what we've got might be like me saying, "Well, I make $12.00 an hour, and I'm making it okay, but BOY, imagine what I could do if I made $36 an hour! SHOO-WEE!"

I'm sure that having 3x the number of troops on the ground would most certainly help, but I feel like things are getting under control, and that much of the public's conceptions about the war(s) are way overblown. Fear of TERRISTS! have made people batty, even congressmen, and they want to rush to do anything to keep those nasty TERRISTS! from blowing up our buildings, and harming our innocents. Some people are level-headed, and others aren't so level-headed. I think that by the landslide that the bill was voted down, it's apparent that the general concensus is that we're doing fine as we are, and though it'd be nice to have more troops out there, we don't imminently need them right now. At least, we don't need them enough to instate the draft.

Personally, I look at it like this. Forgive my language on this, though. No matter what happens, this administration is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Same for pretty much every administration I can think of in the past, too. No matter what the primary controlling party/president does or doesn't do, there's always going to be somebody gripeing from the left, right, above, below, and every sideways you can think of. If we'd sent more troops, people'd complain about that. If we sent less troops, people'd complain about that. People are complaining both ways even now! Going even further, people would have complained if we hadn't gone to war, and people are complaining that we shouldn't have gone to war. Heck, there are people still complaining that we should have finished things back in the early 90's.

...But I'm curious, too-- Because of my work schedule, I don't really get to keep up with the day-to-day events of what's going on. Why is Afghanistan going to hell?

Also, how did Bush screw us? Now, before you answer that question, think really hard. Let's not hear any sillyness like:

• NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
  or
• BUSH IS FINISHING WHAT 'IS DADDY COULDN'T DO!
  or
• HALLIBURTON, HALLIBURTON, RAH, RAH , RAH!
  or
• Intolerance for Islam--WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM, MAN!
  or...
• WAR! *HUH* (Good GOD, Y'ALL!) What is it good for?!?!

Mind you, I'm not stabbing at anyone here. I just want to veer away from the anti-Bush talking points that are always spewed about, and end up in pointless arguments. And, when stating why you think Bush screwed us in the first place, try to cite references, but do it without citing any organizations with obvious liberal bias. And, just to make things fair, let's not cite any sources with obvious neo-conservative bias either. I think the dialog about this stuff needs to have the facts discussed, not opinions, not rumors, not hatred for a party or particular person.

[dlh6213]

Alex, I couldn't agree with you more. But I want everyone to keep in mind that this thread was started only to allay peoples fears of the Draft. I don't know if DaniWeb is the appropriate forum for a political debate, which is where this appears to be heading.

[alc6379]

Alex, I couldn't agree with you more. But I want everyone to keep in mind that this thread was started only to allay peoples fears of the Draft. I don't know if DaniWeb is the appropriate forum for a political debate, which is where this appears to be heading.

Sure, you're probably right here. I don't think that political discussion is out of the scope of the Geek's Lounge here, but my questions would probably drive this thread off-topic. If anyone's interested in discussing the points I mentioned, PM me, and I can alter or split this thread as needed.

[MikeAR]

Exactly. I don't want to argue talking points or anything, but most analysts, whether they admit it, or even realize it, tend to have a negative slant (note, I could have said "Liberal", but I didn't). So, to say that we need 3x more troops than what we've got might be like me saying, "Well, I make $12.00 an hour, and I'm making it okay, but BOY, imagine what I could do if I made $36 an hour! SHOO-WEE!"

Regardless of whether or not there were WMD's, it was an immoral war, but that's not the point. Bush went in with not nearly enough troops. Even conservatives (Franks, Novak, Bremmer, and others) agree on this. We need more now, that's near indisputable.

[kc0arf]

HI,

I think there needs to be the this discussion, and might as well keep it here. Although no one will argue that politics is a "science" and good luck with the tech support on that.

I think that we have to bozos running for office. I'll be voting for Bush because I think Kerry is the greater of two evils. I do wish there were a different choice for canidates, but feel that anyone *qualified* to take the job *WONT* because of all the other baggage associated with the position. With all of the nuts running around today, why would a successful, intelligent, effective leader want to expose himself and his family to the rigors of high political office? A lot of energy to be spent, and what would he achieve? (I am using him for the sake of argument, I think a woman can lead too) I think that the way the press eats alive the private lives of the canidates seriously narrows the canidates, and flushes out the good ones who won't put up with the slander. So we get good ole' boys to run, and mediocre results continue.

I think we had to go to Iraq. I do not think it will end soon, and to be honest, am surprised that martial law is not in effect over there, and everyone sorted out. Then again, I repair computers and networks; I am not a military tactition. I do realize, though, that after WWII, Japan was occupied for 5 - 10 years and re-built, at the cost of the American Taxpayer. Too bad no one really learns history deeply anymore; war is war, and we are trying to change the attitudes in Iraq, and the Middle East.

In some ways, I support a draft! Other countries have it, and young people can learn a trade from the military, a sense of discipline, and how to work together. When I was 18 - 19, I knew college was in line for me; I wanted to be an engineer or computer guy, and I knew what direction to go and steps to take. I knew a lot of people who didn't. Perhaps the military would be an answer to try different things while being paid, and discovering internal things about ourselves.

Then again, a draft implies wartime action, especially in this day and age. Could I ask someone to go in my place? No, my constitution forbids that. Unfortunuately, I also realize that someone over there has a hatered for my country, and might be planning to attack me, because that person has no other viewpoint to work with. But I have no doubt in my mind that if the war comes here, I will arm myself, and be prepared to defend my friends and family without question. (I am a believer in gun safety, and believe that people kill people, and guns do not kill people). I think everyone should know how to fire a weapon, and be ready if the war comes home.

I am thankful for the soldiers of yesterday that have served our country. I am thankful for the soldiers today who serve today. If drafted, I would ask for a computer support assignment or communications assignment, so that I could support others in the field, and to my part.

I'll come back later,

Christian

[dlh6213]

...most analysts, whether they admit it, or even realize it, tend to have a negative slant...

What Alex is referring to here is called bias or 'media spin' and you can read more about it here if you're interested:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/05/25.html , but I can give a couple of examples that I myself posted here.

In my very first post in this thread (post #1), the word Democrat doesn't really need to be there. The meaning of the post would not change at all. But by having it there, it subtly shows that it was a Democrat that started the Draft rumor that many are blaming on Republicans.

In post #7, I could have just given the link to the WMD report without comment; this would have been unbiased. But by including the comments I did, I gave the impression that I didn't agree with the prior post.

The most blatent example of this is the recent Dan Rather scandal. Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Rather knew these documents were fraudulent, be he had staff members telling him they didn't look right. He should have done more to insure their accuracy before airing them; but he had an agenda he wanted to protray and these fraudulant documents fit it perfectly.

The reason I'm posting this thread is so everyone remembers to get all the facts for themselves, not to rely on any one else's "opinion" (especially not the 'News'!) because, whether intentional or not, it will usually be biased.

[dlh6213]

Hey, did anybody catch in the last debate (10/08/04), where Kerry said he was going to add 40,000 more troops??? How is he going to do that? It's all volunteer now, so is he going to somehow get 40,000 more people to join? Or is he secretly planning to start the draft again? Well, he won't get congress to start the draft again, and he said he wasn't going to, so I'd like to know just how he plans to get another 40,000 troops. Anyone have any ideas?