Liberals please explain this one....

[wannabe]

I just got an email from a liberal friend of mine, started by a university professor who wanted to stop the return of the draft (and a lot of you have talked about it here). One bill each in the Senate and House (S. 89 and H.R. 163) has been introduced proposing to reinstate the draft. This much is a matter of record. Also a matter of record, according to the official US Congress website (www.congress.org), is that S. 89 was introduced by a Democrat and co-sponsered by a Democrat. H.R. 163 was introduced by a Democrat and co-sponsored by 15 other Democrats. Not a single Republican. So why does this email and the liberals on this board always blame the REPUBLICANS for this effort?

I DO NOT want to start a flame war here, nor do I care what your views are regarding the draft. I am honestly just curious as to why the left is blaming this one on the Republicans. Were you leftists/liberals/Democrats not aware, or was this a concerted political effort to make the right look bad?

[Infernal]

I was under the impression that HR 163 and S 89 addressed a minimum mandatory service for all citizens. That is not a draft.

In any case, the left will blame the right for anything they can grab a hold of, and the right will do the same to the left. It's politics.

Personally speaking I don't know who introduced the bills, so I can't say much more about it. I do know they've been in limbo for quite some time, and I also suspect that the chances of them getting passed are basically zilch.

[speedracer95v6]

Mandatory service would be good. It would be awesome if everyone had at least a little military service.

[L32Projekt]

Yeah, but dirtbags that aren't fit for the military are the ones that give the rest of us bad names... :(

Making Military Service mandatory makes all the dirtbags come in, and that's nothing but a headache for the rest of us!

[Nathan]

Yeah, I agree with L32Projekt. I am in the military now and we have plenty of lazy dirtbags to deal with. I don't think that we need to rest to join up and make things more difficult for us.

[RallyRed 98]

i don't remember the thread, but was the blame game real or imagined? i still don't see too many differences between republicans and democrats; i feel like i am being ripped off by whichever i vote for. the "issues" as i see them are just little side shows so we take our eyes off whatever evil they are perpetrating... lol

man i must be paranoid :D :mad:

[Infernal]

This is HR163:

http://thomas.loc.gov./cgi-bin/bdque...108:h.r.00163:

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

It's sponsored by Rep Charles B. Rangel [NY-15] and Cosponsored by:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M.
Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]

Yes, you were right. This is a Democrat sponsored bill. I completely see your point. I've seen nothing but "Bush is trying to bring back the draft!!!", and now I discover this? What the hell.

[ June 18, 2004, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Infernal ]

[Machiavelli]

Its not the draft.
Its mandatory service to your country - it is NOT mandatory service in the military.
This is not just for a time of war - and I also think that its a good idea and I consider myself a liberal/moderate.

What I do not like and what "liberals" do not like is a draft to recruit our young men/women to fight in an occupation force that was started under pretences we've now found to be false - If we need a draft to stay in Iraq we shouldnt be staying there.

The reason teh draft failed miserably in Vietnam is b/c the people being sent were untrained and inexperienced. study the mei-lai (sp?) case to figure that out.

2 years of mandatory service to your country in the civil service is a good idea.


Oh yeah and not all Democrats are liberal.

[token sebring]

I think short term, most liberals who supported bringing back the draft are doing it NOT to bring back the draft and have the war go on forever, but instead, to make the US really decide whether this war is worth the lives of our men and women. How people REALLY feel about the war will come out and then people will be looking to make sure that the justifications for it are real and not imagined/made up/exaggerated/etc.

I think it's more of a "test the waters" thing or a short term gamble than anything else...

[wannabe]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Its not the draft.
Its mandatory service to your country - it is NOT mandatory service in the military.
This is not just for a time of war - and I also think that its a good idea and I consider myself a liberal/moderate.

What I do not like and what "liberals" do not like is a draft to recruit our young men/women to fight in an occupation force that was started under pretences we've now found to be false - If we need a draft to stay in Iraq we shouldnt be staying there.

The reason teh draft failed miserably in Vietnam is b/c the people being sent were untrained and inexperienced. study the mei-lai (sp?) case to figure that out.

2 years of mandatory service to your country in the civil service is a good idea.


Oh yeah and not all Democrats are liberal.

Just for the record, not a single pretense has been found false. The 9/11 Commission's preliminary report, issued this week, did indeed state that there was no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush never claimed there was. He said there was a correlation between AL QAEDA and Iraq, which the Commission has found to be true. The Commission has found an extensive relationship of meetings, starting as early as 1994, between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is a case of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy." We have found chemical weapons and the remnants of biological weapons all over Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a financier of Hamas and Hezbollah, both terrorist organizations. He was known to pay $30,000 to the families of suicide bombers. So where are the false pretenses? The one piece of faulty intelligence we received from the British? Please. That's ONE little piece of information from many, many others that pointed enough toward Iraq having WMD that Clinton, Gore, and the UN agreed that they did. The simple fact is that through all of these actions, Hussein's regime posed a material threat to the security of the United States. Sorry to get off-topic, but I couldn't let that one go unanswered.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by wannabe:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Its not the draft.
Its mandatory service to your country - it is NOT mandatory service in the military.
This is not just for a time of war - and I also think that its a good idea and I consider myself a liberal/moderate.

What I do not like and what "liberals" do not like is a draft to recruit our young men/women to fight in an occupation force that was started under pretences we've now found to be false - If we need a draft to stay in Iraq we shouldnt be staying there.

The reason teh draft failed miserably in Vietnam is b/c the people being sent were untrained and inexperienced. study the mei-lai (sp?) case to figure that out.

2 years of mandatory service to your country in the civil service is a good idea.


Oh yeah and not all Democrats are liberal.

Just for the record, not a single pretense has been found false. The 9/11 Commission's preliminary report, issued this week, did indeed state that there was no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush never claimed there was. He said there was a correlation between AL QAEDA and Iraq, which the Commission has found to be true. The Commission has found an extensive relationship of meetings, starting as early as 1994, between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is a case of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy." We have found chemical weapons and the remnants of biological weapons all over Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a financier of Hamas and Hezbollah, both terrorist organizations. He was known to pay $30,000 to the families of suicide bombers. So where are the false pretenses? The one piece of faulty intelligence we received from the British? Please. That's ONE little piece of information from many, many others that pointed enough toward Iraq having WMD that Clinton, Gore, and the UN agreed that they did. The simple fact is that through all of these actions, Hussein's regime posed a material threat to the security of the United States. Sorry to get off-topic, but I couldn't let that one go unanswered. </font>[/QUOTE]Thats the exact oppossite of what is true. Re-read/listen to whatever media coverage that youre deriving these opinions. Oh yeah and turn off Fox news.

The only real evidence they have for any contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda is a single meeting between a Col in the Iraqi army and an al qaeda member in Sudan in 1994 - and thats really not a strong connection.
The 9/11 commission is not around to make the case for war or not - its analyzing the intelligence that we have.

You think Saddam Hussein was a financier for Hezbollah and Hamas?? And most of our allies in Saudi Arabia are not?

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
2 years of mandatory service to your country in the civil service is a good idea.

So now in the land of the free the government would force me to work for them for two years?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh..........

:rolleyes:

Thankfully, this will NEVER pass. Only totalitarians would support it in the first place.

There are two kinds of countries in the world that have mandatory service:

1. Military states
2. Socialist regimes

If we want America to remain free, the haven of democracy, this sort of thing must never pass to law.

[Machiavelli]

Actually Stefan, youre somewhat correct - but it could be implemented in a positive way.
Kerry has discussed the idea of a modified policy along these lines: requiring 1-2 years of service to America... but this would include charities, outreach programs, etc.
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by token sebring:
I think short term, most liberals who supported bringing back the draft are doing it NOT to bring back the draft and have the war go on forever, but instead, to make the US really decide whether this war is worth the lives of our men and women. How people REALLY feel about the war will come out and then people will be looking to make sure that the justifications for it are real and not imagined/made up/exaggerated/etc.

I think it's more of a "test the waters" thing or a short term gamble than anything else...

I think I may agree with you. Actually, I may support a two year mandatory service. The problem is, everywhere I look whether it be message boards or "real life", people are saying "Bush wants to bring back the draft", and if this is the bill they're referring to then there are definitely some misconceptions that need to be cleared up.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

No. I already pay taxes. I already contribute my labor and entrepreneurial ability to this country's economy. My efforts already raise this country's Gross Domestic Product.

Just because I do not work for the government does not mean that I do not benefit this country. Where would this country's government and economy be without private sector workers like me?

The reason America is the economic superpower of the world is because the U.S. economy benefits from private activities much more than it does from public activities. Look at states with a high degree of government-employed/sponsored activities (i.e. democratic socialist states). Their economies cannot come close to match the American growth in production and output that is a result of a free market system.

Private Americans make America the superpower that it is--not government workers. Right now I benefit this country a lot more than some deadbeat who works as a payroll clerk in a stuffy government office in Washington D.C.

It is a myth that you must work for civil service or be in the military to "serve your country".