Nightscrawlers

This just blows me away. It is shocking to me. I can't believe some of the bills that are trying to be introduced right now.

Good lord.

Paws

geez... for the sake of my American friends, i hope that doesn't pass... Speaking of stupid bills though: http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/

[Edited on 12/6/06 by Bamfette]

Originally posted by fourpawsonthefloor
This just blows me away. It is shocking to me. I can't believe some of the bills that are trying to be introduced right now.

Good lord.

Paws

The hell? That will never fly.

I'm fucking praying it doesn't fly. Otherwise, you guys have a spare couch?

Like HELL I am going to war.....

You'd be surprised, Spaz. I wouldn't be, myself. I don't even necessarily think it's a bad idea but that's my own views. But it's most likely one of the bills submitted for face value that won't even be considered on the floor.

But trust me, I'm very much aware of the activism going on to protect Net Neutrality.

More of our "freedoms" are slowly being choked to death. Forcing U.S. citizens to perform military service is just their way of saying, "We can't replenish our dead soldiers fast enough so we must force our citizens to go into the service."

I just turned 40 and from what I read it now states those between 18-42. If it passes I guess I'd end up going if my number came up. NOT!! I'd rather be in jail than to be forced into service. I can safely say most people would probably go to jail rather than serving in the military.

[Edited on 6-12-2006 by Northstars Love]

Originally posted by HoodedMans Love

I just turned 40 and from what I read it now states those between 18-42. If it passes I guess I'd end up going if my number came up. NOT!! I'd rather be in jail than to be forced into service. I can safely say most people would probably go to jail rather than serving in the military.

WOOO! Wanna be cell buddies?! I'll bring the microwave and a few throw rugs, think you can manage the mini-frig and dinnerware? OH and a blender is a MUST!

That's one scary bill - it gives the president so much power and while there's a deferment to allow students to finish high school, there's nothing for higher education.

Also, requiring everyone men and women to serve is just designed to provoke reaction. That's the point of the bill. Congressman Rangel has been introducing versions of this same bill since 2003. This is just a more extreme version - and I'm not even sure he wants it to pass.

In the words of Charles Rangel

"The President said in his State of the Union address that war was an option that remained on the table in dealing with these countries. In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms. As other people's children endure a grinding war, they have been given huge tax cuts, while our veterans have gotten cuts in health benefits," Congressman Rangel said.

And here's his Official website

(So, while things are bad here at present, maybe they're not quite as bad as they seem)

We used to have 'National Service' over here, I think they stopped it in the 50s or 60s, but they revived it in essence for a reality television show, called Lads Army, where they took a load of dossing, criminal scumbags and made them do all the training and the like and the difference it made in some of them was unbelivable. Sure, some didn't change and dropped out of the show, but for those who stayed you could see the difference. They had more respect and were willing to be better men.

True, this was for the sake of television, they didn't have to stay in the army (though a few did actually go join up after filming the show) and they didn't have to go to war but it showed that the training at least did improve the behaviour and fitness of the young men who took part.

Maybe I'm biased as I'm a military brat, and I did nearly join up myself - the only reason I didn't was I got into my acting and stage combat and I think I'm too short to drive a tank anyway, which is what I wanted.

If they passed a similar bill over here, I can say I'd serve my time, although they'd never bring back National Service here (as we're such a bloody pushover place nowadays I'm surprised we still even have an army) so if you guys get it, pop over to England

While I do respect the job that the people who enlist for the army do, despite my misgivings about the war itself, the idea that I would be forced to go do such a thing in my mind is totally abhorrent.

It is more than just providing a service to your country, it is a complete stripping of your rights. It's just horrible.

I seriously have typed and deleted paragraphs here cause it just upsets me that much. Really though, here I am preaching to the choir.

Paws

Originally posted by HoodedMans Love
I can safely say most people would probably go to jail rather than serving in the military.

I'm sorry. Why is this?

Because some people may not believe the war is justified and fighting and possibly dying for a cause you don't believe in is much worse than having to spend time in jail for some.. personally, I'm gonna stick with school, because as I believe it, I can't be drafted if I'm earning an education.. that and the fact that I'd probably step on a landmine or do something stupid like that within the first five minutes of being deployed:shifty

right, exactly. If I am going to join the army, I would want it to be by my own choice. To know that I have a *choice*, to fight for something I actually believe in, as opposed to being *forced* to fight for something i don't.

I really wouldn't think a draft would be needed, I mean come on only about 2,000-3,000? Soilders have died in Iraq and etc...so drafting now would be ridiculous. There is my two cents for the thread I'll go now

My two cents for the thread are that from what I've heard this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, so it's most likely a non-issue.

Yeah no one is stupid enough to try and pass this with all those damn hippies around

Originally posted by NachtcGleiskette

Originally posted by HoodedMans Love

I just turned 40 and from what I read it now states those between 18-42. If it passes I guess I'd end up going if my number came up. NOT!! I'd rather be in jail than to be forced into service. I can safely say most people would probably go to jail rather than serving in the military.

WOOO! Wanna be cell buddies?! I'll bring the microwave and a few throw rugs, think you can manage the mini-frig and dinnerware? OH and a blender is a MUST!

I can do that! I'll even bring the DVD player and the movies! And with that blender we can make our margaritas!

Originally posted by HoodedMans Love
I can safely say most people would probably go to jail rather than serving in the military.

Originally posted by HoodedMan
I'm sorry. Why is this?

Because I have talked to many people about this issue. They agree with me. Jail is preferrable than being forced to serve.

Some may think I'm afraid to serve. I'm not. I just don't believe the US has to police every damn country on this globe. I swear if the US made it pass the planet Mars we'd end up policing the solar system.

The only way I'd grab a weapon is if foreign invaders were at the US border waiting to wage war to take over our nation. Remember the movie Red Dawn? That would be a just war worth dieing for. No second thoughts. I'd defend the US and the Constitution with my life because I believe that is worth dieing for.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by Northstars Love]

But I think all this talk about a draft is a bunch of frothing at the mouth over nothing. I think this will prove to be exactly like all the other times during this war that someone brought up the possibility of a draft. It won't happen. So don't go plotting attempts to dodge the draft or planning your prison stays just yet. Besides, overreating like this is just what Republicans love to see us do.

One thing I might agree with this on, though. As of now, only men are required to sign up for selective service- for a draft that has not and likely will never be reintroduced since the Vietnam War. Requiring the same of women I think will bring the now and likely permanently nonexistent draft into the 21st century. Still, it's not as good as abolishing that requirement altogether, but as long as one group of people has to do that, everyone should.

Originally posted by Angelique
But I think all this talk about a draft is a bunch of frothing at the mouth over nothing. I think this will prove to be exactly like all the other times during this war that someone brought up the possibility of a draft. It won't happen. So don't go plotting attempts to dodge the draft or planning your prison stays just yet. Besides, overreating like this is just what Republicans love to see us do.

One thing I might agree with this on, though. As of now, only men are required to sign up for selective service- for a draft that has not and likely will never be reintroduced since the Vietnam War. Requiring the same of women I think will bring the now and likely permanently nonexistent draft into the 21st century. Still, it's not as good as abolishing that requirement altogether, but as long as one group of people has to do that, everyone should.

This has nothing to do with a draft. A draft is a totally separate thing. This has to do with trying to pass legislation making every US citizen from the ages of 18-42 to serve in the military whether they like it or not. No choice. This is to be done in peace time as well as in time of war. A draft is done in wartime.

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by Northstars Love]

Irrelevant. It's still military involuntary servitude. And if a draft has less than a snowball's chance of being reimplemented even during a time of war, this will very likely die without even being discussed in committee.

Originally posted by Angelique
Irrelevant. It's still military involuntary servitude. And if a draft has less than a snowball's chance of being reimplemented even during a time of war, this will very likely die without even being discussed in committee.

Granted, I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but I think it has nothing to do with this reasoning. It's not being 'sold' as military service, but national service. I think, if anything, that this would give it an inherently better chance of being accepted than a draft. A draft has the stigma of being used to send unwilling men off to fight and die in a war not of their choosing. But public service? I didn't bother to read the whole thing, honestly, because I doubt it is even intended to pass by it's creator, but depending on the duration of said service I can see there being much more support for this kind of measure than a draft. The age range on it, however, is what makes me think it's not meant even remotely seriously. However, I do have some small worry that, at some point, a bill might successfully be introduced to require mandatory national service of, say, all 18-24 year olds or some such, with a deferral for higher education. Something like that just might have a snowball's chance in hell...maybe more.

Will this fly? Possibly. With the general atmosphere in America right now, it very well might. Plus, you have to remember that most of the people voting on this thing are old enough that most of their kids are already out of this range.

My perspective? This is a "hidden draft". It allows them to force people into military service during wartime at the behest of the President according to needs. That's a draft. But it's not called that and it's hidden as "just part of being a citizen."

Realistically, the only way this is NOT going to pass is if the media jumps on it using the word "draft." It's really the only thing people are ABSOLUTELY against...however, the main media outlets in this country, despite the "liberal media" buzzword, are very much in the conservative vein. Fox and its subsidiaries being notoriously Republican party-line.

And people WILL NOT choose jail over military service. Some might, sure, but I'm thinking the vast majority will go into the military first. Some as a matter of pride, but mostly because it WILL affect the entire rest of your life. Imagine having to say "Yes" to the "Have you ever commited a felony?" question on your job application...and then having to explain that you were "dodging the draft." It's going to be damned near impossible, especially in red states, to get a job with that on your record.

On the otherhand, I'm already 25.

From what I hear, this bills is just one of those that's supposed to be making a statement, like "Oh, so you're so free about killing our 'kids' in Iraq, why not just send over all of our... etc."

It's never been meant to pass. Would I be surprised if it only fails by a small margin? Not especially.

I would be surprised if it ever made it out of committee. And I think people who introduce frivolous legislation they know won't even pass should be held accountable for their part in wasting tax dollars.

For the federal govenment to require "service" rather flies in the face of a number of American ideals. We give to our communities, and when applicable, serve in our military because we want to, we recognize how it could improve us individually and as a society, and we are free to do so, not because the government requires it of us.

I'm feeling so ignored

This bill was written by a democrat who is against the war. It was not written to pass, and it will never pass because it requires everybody to serve. Including the wealthy and privledged who historically have never been forced to put themselves at risk since this country was founded.

In the words of the guy responsible for this bill
"In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms. As other people's children endure a grinding war, they have been given huge tax cuts, while our veterans have gotten cuts in health benefits," Congressman Rangel said.

The American public is criminally apethetic about what this country has been doing over the last half decade especially. If this bill provokes dialogue or makes people angry then it will have done what its author designed it to do.

Although, imagine what the world would be like if instead of the president or congress sending 'other people' to war, they were sending themselves or loved ones. When people have a personal stake like that I think they'd be much much less (chicken)-hawkish.

That said, I've thought for a long time that Heinlen had a point when he argued that only people who have 'served' their country for two years should be permitted to vote. (I don't mean military neccessarily - but there are a lot of volunteer opportunities that don't require going to foreign countries and murdering people). It's another way to make people less apathetic about voting, or that they have more of a stake in what this country does - because they are involved.