source: http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/mandatory_draft.htm

quote:

"From: Sophie Lapaire
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml
March 19, 2004

I rarely send a mail to a large audience, but the possibility of mandatory drafting
for boys and girls (age 18-26) starting June 15 2005, is something, I believe,
everyone should know. This litteraly affects EVERYONE since we all have or know
children that will have to go if this bill passes.

If there are children in your family, READ this.

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163)
which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring
2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. 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.

Even those voters who currently support us. Actions abroad may still object to
this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about
whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but 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.

The draft

$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) 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 website:
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss 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 a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may
have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the
common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the
United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a
period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the
committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College
and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed
a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers
in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland
Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which
implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering
and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable
along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.
Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their
current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year."


[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ..]

4/9/2004 2:07:42 PM

We'll see about that.

4/9/2004 2:12:09 PM

hahahahahaha silly people

4/9/2004 2:17:39 PM

w00t w00t

4/9/2004 2:34:19 PM

[old]

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=181906

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=180222

4/9/2004 2:44:00 PM

I have no problem w/ mandatory service requirements. I think everyone in the US who is able should have to serve their country, whether it be in the military, peace corps, or in administrative support of the military.

4/9/2004 3:26:01 PM

nice idea...

but every military man i've met has been strongly against the idea of drafting in non-crisis situations...

dilution of the caliber of our soldiers is not something that we should be doing when our current force size is perfectly adequate for the tasks we should be engaging in

4/9/2004 3:27:25 PM

^ yeah, that is always a problem, which is why I suggested alternate ways of service. Some people who would be drafted would be just fine in the trenches, while others would be crap. I'm sure the DIs could help figure out the good ones from the bad ones, while people who don't want to serve on the front lines or even in any kind of combat position could pick from the other alternatives.

4/9/2004 3:32:55 PM

I'm against the whole notion, on principle...but if we're going to do it, I can't say that I disagree with making it universal.

4/9/2004 3:38:22 PM

if they do this they're going to have to allow for open homosexuality in the military... otherwise people who come out before the age of 18 will have an unfair "easy out" when it comes to doing military service

4/9/2004 3:47:11 PM

Just as a quick question, how many of those who support this idea also support socialism and/or higher taxes (or incredibly large and continuous budget deficits)?

[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2004 3:56:54 PM

For the people who decide to persue a higher education after high school, I hope they give them the choice of serving after college.

4/9/2004 4:00:46 PM

can you imagine pulling most of the kids out from behind these message boards and throwing them into war? what a joke..

i say first to get drafted should be the congressmen and other such elected officials. i think we'd see a real priority shift in foriegn policy..

4/9/2004 4:11:56 PM

I tell you what, no fucking american service man wants me to be drafted.

I will give my life for my nation, but not for some president's war.

If I were drafted, I would do my best to shoot american soldiers while in the fog of war. Its a matter of simple spite. And I suspect that I'm not alone.

4/9/2004 4:45:21 PM

^ gee, that makes a fucking lot of sense. "I hate the president, so I will kill people who have nothing to do w/ what I hate" grow up

4/9/2004 5:07:30 PM

aha youngblood

4/9/2004 5:09:44 PM

won't happen

4/9/2004 5:11:06 PM

you would think you guys would know by now that when salisburyboy makes a thread it should have 0 views and 0 replies

4/9/2004 5:12:53 PM

haha, i'm for this...why, cuz I wouldn't meet the medical requirements. THank god for scoliosis

4/9/2004 5:13:17 PM

and I wouldn't be allowed in either *waves rainbow flag*

4/9/2004 7:32:21 PM

won't happen

4/9/2004 7:37:19 PM

Wow, are you that desperate to get Bush out of office that you have to make up stories.....

or are you that stupid to believe everything you read?

4/9/2004 8:03:03 PM

not gonna happen
but if it does i'm gone

4/9/2004 8:05:26 PM

that story sounds so incredibly fake that I'm laughing out loud to myself in my room with the neighbors thinking I've gone mad

thanks for the laugh
drafting of "girls" was the funniest part

[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 9:05 PM. Reason : V hahaha]

4/9/2004 9:02:13 PM

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH CANADA!

4/9/2004 9:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Just as a quick question, how many of those who support this idea also support socialism and/or higher taxes (or incredibly large and continuous budget deficits) "

I'm not entirely sure of what the two have to do with each other, but my reason for supporting this idea is just to equalize the burden between the economic classes. It's like RFK said during the Vietnam draft, it's easy to support a war and vote for escalation when it's poor people out there dying for the cause. If that's socialism, then yeah, I guess so.

4/9/2004 9:14:10 PM

Quote :

"MANDATORY DRAFT FOR AGES 18-26 MAY COME SOON "

and monkeys might fly out of my butt

4/9/2004 9:24:11 PM

Kay_Yow, that is exactly what the point of this thing is. Apparently, this is an idea of Al Sharpton, or at least has his support, because he thinks that the military is only made up of poor black people who could do nothing else. So, I would suppose this is hardly a bush thing

4/9/2004 9:33:23 PM

duke is right, ain't gonna happen

4/9/2004 9:52:19 PM

aaronburro, I never said this was a "Bush thing" but this isn't Al Sharpton's idea, either. Sharpton, however, is right in suggesting that blacks, Hispanics and poor people are disproportionately represented in the military. Spin that however you want, but it is pretty accurate. The notion has been around since Vietnam, probably before...it's not new information.

Reps. Conyers and Rangel introduced draft legislation in the House, Sen. Hollings introduced it in the Senate. So, no it's not a Bush thing.

That said, though, if Bush wants to fight this war with any success, I think he has to at least examine this possibility.

4/9/2004 10:12:30 PM

if it was white people, y'all would be bitching about how there aren't enough african americans or hispanics in the military. People have a choice to choose that as a career, or a job at one time or another, to say that they are disproportionately represented basically conotates that they are forced there. No one is forced to go into the military, it is a choice people make.

4/9/2004 10:16:59 PM

^ Who's this "y'all" that would be bitching?

Just because you're not holding a gun to people's heads doesn't mean they aren't forced.

[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 10:19 PM. Reason : add]

4/9/2004 10:18:53 PM

y'all as in everyone bitching that they are over represented. that includes you, al sharpton, rangel, and conyers and Fritz.


please pray tell, how are they forced into military service? hmmm...is there some sort of law that I don't know about that says, african americans have to go into the military?

[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 10:37 PM. Reason : can't forget about hollings.]

4/9/2004 10:28:01 PM

sweet

4/9/2004 10:30:48 PM

Oh please, another conspiracy theory from salisburyboy. It's not gonna happen.

4/9/2004 11:25:50 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro, I never said this was a "Bush thing" but this isn't Al Sharpton's idea, either. Sharpton, however, is right in suggesting that blacks, Hispanics and poor people are disproportionately represented in the military. Spin that however you want, but it is pretty accurate. The notion has been around since Vietnam, probably before...it's not new information. "

This is actually a much trickier subject now than it was back during the 1970s. It was true that back during the Vietnam War, a grossly disproportionate number of African Americans were sent to Vietnam. It is a fallacy though that blacks died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam; African Americans made up 12.1% of all casualties in Vietnam, equal to the percentage in the general US population and actually lower than the percentage they made up of forces deployed in South East Asia.

It should be noted that the modern United States volunteer army is actually made up vastly of people from working and middle class backgrounds. While it is certainly true that there are still a disproportionate number of minorities in the military compared to the general population, most minorities tend to be in noncombat positions. Combat positions tend to be filled disproportionately with whites. In fact, the average incomes of the families of blacks who enter the service is actually higher than the national average for African Americans.

4/10/2004 4:50:11 AM

^
Can I ask you where you got that information? I'm not saying it's false (in fact, I would have to say that you're probably right on). I'm just curious as to where I could read more about this.

BTW, I'm glad to see that they'd consider drafting women too.

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 7:26 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 7:26:02 AM

I WONDER HOW LONG IT TAKES A DRAFT CARD TO BURN IN OPEN AIR?

If you'll take a look at this report: SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN FY 2004,
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

you may see that there seems to be some interesting plans for the next fiscal year. Wonder why?
The SSS Strategic Goals identified in the Agency’s Plan for FY 2001- 2006 are:

- INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE
MANPOWER DELIVERY SYSTEMS

- ENHANCE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CUSTOMER SERVICE

- IMPROVE OVERALL REGISTRATION COMPLIANCE AND
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC

- ENHANCE THE SYSTEM WHICH GUARANTEES THAT EACH
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR IS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED,
PLACED, AND MONITORED
Well, if you read this article at Indy Media,
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php

this one at Salon,
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

and this one at Statesman Journal,
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=76236

you'll see why.
The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished sinced the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life. Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Even floating the idea of a draft in the months before an election would be politically explosive, and the Pentagon last week was adamant that the push to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.
Now, I don't think I need to tell anyone how Strategic Plan for FY 2001- 2006 are:
opposed I am to the idea of a draft. A "free country" should inherently contain no laws that force its people to do anything they don't want to, especially when it comes to situations like war. This is not just something that one either likes or doesn't like, in my opinion. I DESPISE war, and it is one of my major problems with society. It is, of course, inescapable under a system like capitalism, which by default assumes infinite growth in order to continue.

Friends, if you are some day called up to "defend your country" against your will, don't forget that you have many choices at your disposal.

1.) Conscientious Objection - According to the SSS itself, "A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." This is an actual legal arrangement that can, supposedly, get you discharged from the military.

2.) Burn your orders and/or just ignore them, and risk arrest like many of our parents did during Vietnam. Of course, with the current administration, the punishments will likely be more severe now. However, this is no reason to work for a killing machine if you don't feel you can.

3.) Leave the country. Unfortunately, according to the Indy Media article , you may not be able to hide in College or Canada.
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Not only that, but this is a much more cowardly way of getting out of the draft than the first two, and I wouldn't recommend it, because there's no telling what sort of "terrorism" you could be charged with in the current environment.

http://www.nisbco.org/
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm


[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 8:29:20 AM

Quote :

"- INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE MANPOWER DELIVERY SYSTEMS - ENHANCE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CUSTOMER SERVICE - IMPROVE OVERALL REGISTRATION COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC - ENHANCE THE SYSTEM WHICH GUARANTEES THAT EACH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR IS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED, PLACED, AND MONITORED "

Because we all know that something's fishy when an organization tries to be a little more efficient and organized. I mean, does your work experience come from a McDonald's or something? When you sit down with your boss and he asks about your plans for the next year, do you tell him or her that you're going to do the same thing or that you're going to try to improve?

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 9:02 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 8:58:24 AM

uh, when the organization is the selective service, our military is stretched so thin that many soldiers aren't getting the support, weapons, and armor they need, and then the selective service starts adding employees, reorganizing, etc?

uh, yeah, that's pretty fishy

4/10/2004 9:07:31 AM

Jesus, George, you need a little more experience.

Seriously.

I mean, when "- ENHANCE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CUSTOMER SERVICE" sounds like a conspiracy to you, you need to take a look at your own workplace. What organization doesn't try to run more efficienty and/or reorganize? How many times has the Selective Service done this in the past?

Not to mention, FY 2001-2006 took place BEFORE 9/11. You'd know that if you had any business sense.

I mean, do you ever say to people that your goals are to remain the same, or that it's to get better? Come on, really.

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 9:09:11 AM

it's not a conspiracy!

it's the draft. that's not a conspiracy. it's something that they've done before, and there's no reason to think they won't try to do it again.

when the military is running out of volunteers, what else would you think they would do? there's no reason to get mad.

and if what you say is true, then why does ever media outlet seem to think you're incorrect? i'd think one of them would have been able to do that research if you can.

4/10/2004 9:25:29 AM

What media outlet seems to think there's a good possibility of a draft? Not just one senator suggesting a draft, but a very real possibility of a draft, based on a credible government source, not simply coffee shop chit chat. And also show me that EVERY media outlet like you said shows that I'm incorrect (or are you just lying about EVERY media outlet).


[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 9:28:57 AM

jesus man, i'm obviously exaggerating when i say "every." seriously. you need to not get so angry.

all I want is for someone to give me a good reason why I shouldn't think there's a possibility of a draft. can you give me one? because I've yet to see one.

but hey, I hope you're right. I'd hate to go to jail for refusing to go if i was drafted.

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 9:52:25 AM

1.) It's political suicide for any politician (most importantly)
2.) Many (maybe even most) military people don't want to serve with draftees
3.) The military can adapt (quite cheaply too) by contracting out many of the support jobs to civilians and sending the shooters to more combat related jobs (Makes no sense to teach marksmanship to someone who sits in the personnel office all day long).
4.) And take this source how you will, but this appears on the SSS's home page. True, things change, but here's what they say:

Quote :

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25. "

Now I asked you before to give me credible evidence that there would be a draft. I offered you my evidence that there wouldn't be a draft could you please afford me the same favor, friend? Thank you.

I will admit that maybe my evidence may not be the best there is, but it's the best I could come up with.


[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 10:01:24 AM

difference between possible and probable.


give me a good reason why i shouldn't think there's a possibility of a giant purple elephant in the sky.

4/10/2004 10:02:10 AM

oooooooh! semantics!

and obviously, I don't have any more evidence than what I've given you. If the sss says there isn't going to be a draft, I'll buy it until I see otherwise.

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 10:05:06 AM

If Bush is re-elected then he won't care if its political suicide, because he won't be running for anything again in his life

4/10/2004 10:12:24 AM

well truthfully, bush is the least of our worries. he doesn't make the decision to reinstate the draft until the bill comes to his desk. i'm quite sure he'd sign the bill, however

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 10:23:59 AM

Oh lord, I pray that some of you chicken shits will NEVER fight along side my fiancé... all talk and no action every single one of you (with a few exceptions)

Move to Canada now.

4/10/2004 11:11:20 AM