the republicans put up a flyer around campus claiming that 6 democrats tried to make a bill ( HR 163) that would require everyone between 18 and 26 to serve in the military for 2 years. I find that pretty hard to believe... does anyone know the real story?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5139838/site/newsweek/

It's a protest move by the Democrats to force the subject during an election year.  What's happening is that the number of active members of the military is dropping, and there aren't enough new recruits to replace the lost soldiers.  Reinstituting the draft during an election year would not be good for the president during an election bid, so they're trying to embarrass him. 

The theory is that if we maintain the two wars we have (or start a third) the president will have less pressure to start up the draft again next year.  He claims that won't be necessary and that he won't do it, but this is also the same person who claimed Saddam and Osama are the same person.

The bill was started by Charles Rangel.  He is opposed to the draft, and knows it will not pass.
He is bringing it up to expose the fact that the people in upper incomes do not go to war, nor
do their children.  The burden is on the middle, working classes, and poor to do the dirty work
when it comes to protecting our country. He believes if the children of the elite where in danger of
being drafted and serving in the active military then congress would be more careful about repeating
the situation we are in now.  I think he is wrong.  I think their children would be in the same situation
little georgie was in in the '70's, and our children would still be dying. >:(

I don't know if any draft bill has a chance of making it through Congress these days.  Bad memories are still fresh in the American mind.  Nonetheless, I'm glad I'm way past 26. 

If we want to maintain and advance our current military ventures, we're clearly going to have to do SOMETHING to get more soldiers.

I can only think what the democrats would be saying if these two congressmen were republicans.  It would be all hell from their side.

I can only think what the democrats would be saying if these two congressmen were republicans.  It would be all hell from their side.


But Repubs are pulling the same crap with the "marriage amendment" to the Constitution.  It has no chance to pass but is just a political ploy, and an f***ing waste of time.


The bill was started by Charles Rangel. He is opposed to the draft, and knows it will not pass.
He is bringing it up to expose the fact that the people in upper incomes do not go to war, nor
do their children. The burden is on the middle, working classes, and poor to do the dirty work
when it comes to protecting our country. He believes if the children of the elite where in danger of
being drafted and serving in the active military then congress would be more careful about repeating
the situation we are in now. I think he is wrong. I think their children would be in the same situation
little georgie was in in the '70's, and our children would still be dying. >:(


I'm not sure I agree with you on this one.  You are probably right, given the power of $$$ & influence, but a lottery might change that.  More importantly, Rangel is just making noise.

  A draft may become a necessity as a result of either immediate situational necessity or prior mismanagement.  The real question will be whether President Kerry will be able to disengage the US military from Iraq to a sufficient degree as to support our other needs. We may already be committed; the present administration's indecency knows few bounds, and pitching us a rosier picture than reality despite all indications otherwise certainly is not one of them.

  My advice is to start laying conscientious-objector grounds now and keep your passport current.  Y'all have my heart, at this time.

  Maybe it's not so bad being 35, after all...

I just saw the end of the house vote on this on CSPAN.  It didn't pass...406 nays, 2 yeas (I would hate to be them when their constituents find out) and I don't remember how many no votes.  The 2 yeas were both Dems...I am assuming they helped to sponsor the bill, that's the only reason I could see anyone vote for this bill.

This is one of the things that I detest the most.  When politicians use the Military to play their partaisan games.  The Military does not want a draft, the President does not want a draft, the general population does not want a draft, and obviously Congress does not want a draft either.

One thing that has been shown in the last 30 years, is that an all volunteer force is the best.  In this way, you get people who truely want to serve.  This was most shown in the first Gulf War, where the numerically smaller force defeated a much larger force, that was fighting on it's home territory.

Having served in the Infantry for 10 years, I can testify that the majority is motivated, proud, and very well trained.  Add to that the equipment that would have been a dream to have even 10 years ago, and you have a small but powerful force.

At the same time, it is also the cadre that would be used in the aweful event of another Global War breaking out.  Short of that (on the level of WWII), I can't see another draft ever occuring.

As for the burden being on the "lower and middle classes", let's not forget that statistically, that is by far what the bulk of the nation's population is.  But overall, don't forget that everybody is a volunteer.

I also met a lot of people when I was in from the upper classes.  One of the guys I served with was the son of a state Governor.  And he was serving as an enlisted man.  In basic training, I was 3 bunks down from the son of a famous Actor.  I will not give his name, out of respect for him and his father, but his Father was a decorated veteran of the Korean War before he started acting.

For the most part, the people I served with can be broken into 3 groups.  The first is those from the lowest classes.  They often joined to improve themselves and get out of their economic strata.  A lot also joined to get training, so when they got out they would not have to return to their former homes.

Another group is one in which I fit in a way.  This is often where the middle and upper classes who join get their inspiration.  It is both a desire to serve, and family tradition.  As long as I can remember, I wanted to join the military.  In fact, in a "baby book" my mom had, she wrote down that when I was 6, my desires were to "Join the Army" and "Become a Palentologist".  And this was in 1971.  My inspiration came from my grandfathers (both WWII veterans), and my maternal brother (who served in Vietnam as a Marine).  I joined the ROTC in High School, because I knew that was what I was going to do when I graduated.

A lot also join for the scholarships and college plans offered.  A lot of Doctors who join do it for the training offered.  If you are going to spend 2 years an an Intern, who not do it in a place where you are treated as an Officer, are paid well, and get to play with some of the best equipment in the world?  It is no surprise to me that Bathesda and Walter Reed are among the best medical institutions in the world.

And for the rich not serving in the military, that is nonsense.  In every war rich and poor alike served.  FDR's son was in the Marines in WWII, and served in the Marine Raider's, undertaking some of the most dangerous missions in the Pacific.  A lot of actors also volunteered during this war.  They could have stayed home, but they choose to serve.

Even in this war, I doubt that anybody could call Pat Tillman "poor".  He walked away from a multi-million dollar football career to serve.  He did it for his own reasons.

If you really want more people in uniform, I have one piece of advice:  stop playing politics with the Military!  Do not use the military for some kind of job program, or a social experiment.  Stop playing games with their pay, their benefits, and their facilities.  And please, do not use them to make statements.