Posted on 09/22/2004 9:26:17 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs
My wife forwarded me an email regarding HR 163 which is a bill put before congress Jan 7, 2003 which apparently would allow a draft of men and women by 2005.
I won't post the email since it was riddled with typical sky-is-falling and anti-Bush comments but I am curious about the bill so I thought I'd throw it out here and see what you all think.
You can go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for HR 163 and read the bill itself. The email claimed that the Bush Admin. is hushing this up and trying to keep it low-key till after the election.
I do have an 18 year old son. While I don't want him in harm's way, of course, I do realize that if the WoT escalates or remains a "long, hard slog", we may not have a choice in the matter.
Is Chuck Hagel a liberal democrat?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04113/304598.stm
Look, I'm in the process of applywing for WOFT with the US Army right now. I'm putting MY money where my mouth is, because I think the WOT is real and needs to be fought in the tradition of thousands of Americans in days gone by.
However, putting your heads in the sand as to the troop levels and writing the draft off as RAT scare tactics may well cause a rude awakening next year. I thought most Americans stopped hitting the snooze button on 9/11...
Ahhhh! You are a rightous dude!
Has he registered for the draft yet? If not, he can register online at www.sss.gov .
And you can also find this:
"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."
It's the "Peace Paradox". If you want peace, prepare for war.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.
Of course it is a RAT scare-tactic. If the military were to need more troops it could obtain them with minimal changes in the qualifications.
Our problems in Iraq are not because of the lack of troops but because of the perception caused by the RATS that the nation is divided and ready to cut and run. This encourages further attacks from the terrorists who believe we can be driven out because our population doesn't have the cajones to drive to victory.
It is Rangel's bill. It also is left in commitee and has not moved since March of 2003.
Excerpts:
The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.
One bill is HR 163 , whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.
In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):
Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.
The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.
Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."
The bill is real - sponsored soley by RATS. The blogs fo bush web site has the full story
DEMOCRATS keep trying to do this. They are the only ones talking about the draft. Their objective is obvious, they are trying to scare people, that Bush is going to reinstitute the draft, when in fact nobody, but the Democrats are talking about it.
The Dems just trying to turn the American people against the war. They want us to sit here and be slaughtered by terrorists, while we are sitting at home, protesting againt the war, instead of going after the terrorists and killing them, before they come and kill us.
Charlie Rangel's been touting this draft concept on TV for quite a while now, since he says blacks are disproportionately dying in Iraq, and it's Bush's fault of course.
Dems want the draft, especially if Kerry gets elected, since our all volunteer service members will likely flee for civilian jobs rather than serve with Kerry as CIC.
I think Kerry would start a draft. He will muck things up in Iraq and start giving in the terrorist demands. Terrorism will flourish and spread around the world with vengence. Our stay in Iraq might be prolonged. We will have another Vietnam.
Your absolutely right! Kerry will bring back the draft because his dream world policies will fall apart in Iraq. You have to remember his cabniet will included Jimmy Carter retreads. Kerry is the wrong person to lead the world in dangerous times. In Kerry's world he will start bilaterial talks with the terrorist. In Kerry's world he will start giving them things if they stop being terrorist. By his liberal nature he will do this. Just like his doomed policies with the North Koreans. Kerry wants to give the North Koreans nuclear energy to make electric power if they stop making nuclear bombs. In Kerry's world he wants to give up our bunker busting bombs with nuclear war heads to end nuclear proliferation. We will be totally defenseless to deter dangerous regimes like Kim Chong-il of Korea or the Mullah of Iran who do have them. If we don't have them, they will extort world peace. In Kerry's world, he believes all nations will put down all their terrible weapons and we will live in a peaceful world ever after.
Kerry lives in a dream world. Sorry Senator Kerry, leading our country will not be like a debate. Reading bullet points from a index card will not protect me and my family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.