Is it me or is the draft the most undemocratic practice?

[truhavoc]

Personally I think that if a cause is worth fighting for, you don't have to MAKE people fight in a war. When you get to the point where all your citizens from 18-34 are draft eligible, where is your freedom. It was once said that we had certain unalienable rights, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - personally I feel the draft corrupts all three of those "rights".

[theKnave]

1. yes

that's probably why we don't have one.

[truhavoc]

3. yet...

I don't think that with the path we are on that will hold up much longer.

[theKnave]

9. I wouldn't be opposed ...

to a two year mandatory service system like they have in Switzerland or Israel. It doesn't necessarily have to be military service. However, it will give everyone some kind of post-high school skills training and hopefully a better social consciousness.

[Scooter24]

31. That is absurd...

Not to mention a terrible comparison. Israel has been under siege for 56 years, they have no choice.

To imply that this country needs to begin a program (National Service) to mold its citizens to fit a conscientious model that is approbated by the government or military is ludicrous and shows utter contempt for the principles that the founding fathers of this country worked so hard to adopt.

The draft isn't a power trip for our leaders. It's primary and only purpose is to maintain an adequate military to ensure our national security in times of dire need. It shouldn't be construed to fit the needs of those that want it as a social program. The draft serves no other purpose than to require the public to work under the guidance of the government or military to instill in them government warranted ideologies under the guise of patriotism. Any 'National Service' law that parallels these ideals will be perceived as a transparent display of contempt towards those whose cherish their freedoms and the right to dissent against the government's actions.

[Dems Will Win]

34. Daniel Webster would agree with you that a draft is unconstitutional

Also don't think once it is reinstated that a lot of protest would stop either the draft or the war underway.

Vietnam proved that wrong a long time ago. The big protests started in 1967 but the war and draft went on until 1973 and ended in 1975 when we were defeated.

SKILLS DRAFT AND NEW COMBAT DRAFT TIMELINE

Feb. 11 2003 - Top-level meeting between the head of the SSS and Deputy Undersecretary Abell in charge of Personnel and Readiness of the DoD on the SKILLS DRAFT. This is the meeting of the secret Issue Paper, revealed by the Freedom of Information Act in May. The SSS goes back encouraged enough to do some more planning.
http://www.blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

Summer 2003 - Drive to start filling DRAFT BOARD vacancies by asking current board members to find new ones.

Fall 2003 - According to Family Circle magazine, Karl Rove polls the GOP Caucus in Congress to see if they would support a Bush reinstatement of the DRAFT. The Republicans told Rove they would vote to bring the DRAFT BACK IF BUSH ASKS FOR IT (from the paper magazine).
http://www.gjusa.com/news/pressReleaseDetails.jsp?id=4141

Fall 2003 - DoD announces critical skills shortages in linguists, computer experts and engineers. SSS Director Brodsky orders the designing of the SKILLS DRAFT procedures, the reg card and the massive database needed to track every young American under 35 and their skills. Brodsky, who "plays" JE McNeil and other anti-draft leaders by calling them regularly and shmoozing them, lies to McNeil telling her that in February of 2003 the SSS had to "justify their existence" before a hostile committee--when in reality the SSS and DOD were having the SKILLS DRAFT meeting and he himself had just started designing the new system and making it his top priority.

Sept 2003 - Draft board recruitment ad goes up on Web.

November 2003 - Draft board ad scrubbed!

Dec. 2003 - Brodsky announces the SKILLS DRAFT to be the "top priority' of the SSS in newsletter and tells of rapid progress to come.

March 13, 2004 - Word of SKILLS DRAFT leaks out in a SF Chronicle story and the SSS admits it and tells reporters it’s just a planning contingency. In an attempt to throw the press off, the SSS also says it would take 2 years to gear up and work out the kinks for the SKILLS DRAFT and that there is no funding for it. Eric Rosenberg, the reporter on the story, finds out about the Feb. 11 meeting Issue Paper and files a Freedom of Information Act request to get it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL


May 1, 2004 – Article on SKILLS DRAFT leaves out key points of how skills conscription would be expanded to fill labor shortages throughout Dept of Homeland Security, 1/3 of government, how the SKILLS DRAFT can be called without a combat draft, how SKILLS INDUCTEES will be inducted within a mere 90 days of reauthorization, that the SSS wanted to “promptly” change the very MISSION of the SSS and so on. The article does, however, reveal many major point of sweeping plan. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html

Sept 13, 2004 – Issue Paper agenda memo of key Feb 2003 meeting posted on the Web at http://www.blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

Summer, Fall 2004 – MOCK DRAFT LOTTERY HELD, SAMPLE MEDICAL EXAM REPORT ORDERS ISSUED TO MAIL LIST. Alternative Service geared up for first time in 31 years! Papers to place Conscientious Objectors with employers actually drawn up. SSS brought up to 95% operational capability, full Medical draft capability set for 2005, all DRAFT BOARD vacancies filled by Spring 2005! On March 31, 2005, the SSS Director must report to the Congress that the entire system is primed and ready to open 2,000 draft board offices and start inducting within 75 days, or June 15, 2005.

BUSH ’04 = DRAFT ‘O5

“There will be no draft when John Kerry is President.” - John Edwards

[Lone_Wolf]

2. It's involuntary servitude...

...which is prohibited by the Constitution. Not that that matters. We haven't been following the Constitution for some time now.

[Yupster]

14. We had a draft in the Civil War

At the beginning there were plenty of volunteers.

Later a draft was needed to keep the ranks filled.

Interestingly, the Confederacy, which left because they wanted states' rights was first to have a national draft.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. A lot of people have 'other priorities' than military service,

and won't serve unless there's a draft. (If there are loopholes, they still won't serve.)

It's not very democratic for our country to depend on the poor for its defense. Why should the poor do all the military service while the middle class and rich go to college?

[J.C.M.]

8. The draft dodging

College deferment is a thing of the past. I read at the selective service website that the only college deferment you will get is until the end of whatever semester you are in unless you are a senior, then you get the end of that year.

Then it’s off to die with the poor kids. That will end the war in a hurry.

JCM

[aquart]

5. Yes, only those who want to be maimed or killed should fight.

It isn't the obligation of every citizen in a democracy, only those who are in the mood.

What utter craven crap. I'm sure your hide will be safe no matter what. Perhap you have a rash or a pilonoidal cyst. Maybe you can get married or get your wife pregnant.

Or you can just hide under the bed.

But there isn't a chance in hell that the people will be cautious about STARTING a war if their necks aren't at risk in the fight.

And it's good to know you don't mind other people dying first and only. Well, of course you don't. After all, it was their choice. Their choice to earn money for college because they didn't have trust funds. Their choice to face sand flies and blood because the plants in their country closed and they couldn't find work. Yeah, they CHOSE to do it, so you don't have to.

You want a democracy. You just think you shouldn't have to fight for it. That ain't a democracy.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Very well said. These threads saying "Let the poor go --

they want to go!" are just further proof that people will support war as long as they don't have to sacrifice. If we had a draft now, there'd be a lot less support for this war and for Bush*.

[truhavoc]

21. It appears that the draft is only viable to you in order to raise dissent?

This does not sound like a good reason to force people into armed combat. How about using other methods, you are attempting to take the easy way out on how to raise opposition to a war. Education and facts will get the job done as well, albeit with a little more work and effort.

[ronabop]

16. My top draft picks:

1. Those with pickup trucks or SUV's who do not actually live on a farm.
Reason: They know how to handle large vehicles, or at least think they do.

2. Those who have a flag bumper sticker, T-shirt, or an unlit flag at night
Reason: Fair-weather patriots who don't respect a flag should put up or shut up.

3. Anybody who owns more than 1 firearm.
Reason: We need people who are already trained with guns. If they can volunteer to train with lethal force on their own, they can volunteer for their country.

If we sent all of those folks to war, the rethug party would be over in a heartbeat.

-Bop

[TahitiNut]

19. Gee... hasn't "Let George Do It" been great?

:puke:

The only thing wrong with the draft is that it doesn't cover everyone without exemption or exception. Every person should be required to serve in some manner, from 12-48 months depending on type of service, between the ages of 18 and 35.

[J.C.M.]

6. I agree but...

I think a draft is just the thing we need to end the war. When it's the blue collar kids coming home dead, that's ok, but once we start drafting the rich kids, and not all of them can slid out of it, and then some of them start coming home dead the war will end very quickly. Dead rich kids = end of war.

Why do you think Vietnam went on so long? All the scumbags like Bush hid out and let the working class kids do all the dying.

[murielm99]

10. The draft lottery came later in the Viet Nam war,

as I recall.

Everyone was very sick of it by then. I don't remember if the lottery had anything to do with ending it more quickly.

[J.C.M.]

12. Draft

The draft was on all throughout Vietnam, no? Back then rich kids (Most of the GOP for example) got out of it. Most of the kids who died in Vietnam were working class kids. Once the rich begin to bury their children the war will stop.

[murielm99]

13. I am not talking about the draft, but the lottery portion of it.

Yes, the draft was on throughout Viet Nam. The lottery came later in the draft.

[Blue Wally]

29. By the time the lottery kicked in.........

Draft calls were already trending down when the lottery began. Nixon did wind down the war (though not as fast as the anti-war elements wanted) by steady troop withdrawals and downsizing the armed services during the 1969-1973 timeframe (yes, he did expand the clandestine wars in Laos and Cambodia into open war). As a result, fewer and fewer needed to be drafted every year. By the end in Vietnam in 1973 (as far as US direct involvement was concerned) it was apparent that a volunteer army was viable and (I believe) the draft eneded forever in 1974.

[pat1962]

37. Vietnam Draft Lottery

The Draft was in place prior to Vietnam. What people hoped for was a high draft or lottery number that would keep them out of the service. As the baby boomer generation become draft eligible there were more people eligible then there were slots needing to be filled. Every male 18 or over has filled out a selective service registration card. The Selective Service Form came out in 1981. I had just graduated from high school. The draft as we know it was ended in the 70s either by Ford or Carter.

[truhavoc]

24. I don't want to seem callous

But I came from a lower income family, in a very small town. I worked my ass off throughout high school in part time jobs just to pay for car insurance, clothes, ect. My parents could not offer any assistance for me to goto college, therefore I paid for the entirety of it with loans, working through college, and very few grants (maybe $350 a semester).

I feel there is a place for all in this world depending on your abilities and the amount of effort you put in. I don't want to be put into the same boat as the kids that drank and smoke their way through school and did not give it their all just to make a point to the "rich". The rich will always be able to avoid wars, regardless. What you are supporting is killing off middle class kids who have worked their asses off...and for what?

[murielm99]

7. Correct.

My dad says that people were lined up around the block to sign up after Pearl Harbor. They had a draft then, but many people were eager to serve.

Many people choose the military because it is their way of serving their country and living honorably. I can't argue with that.

I think if we were invaded, or threatened with invasion, people would climb over each other to serve.

If the terrorist threat was real enough, it would be the same as invasion. If we had wave after wave of terrorist attacks, people would enlist in droves.

But if that happened, we would need to take a serious look at our leadership. FDR set up an investigation of Pearl Harbor immediately. I mean, we are questioning our leadership now, right? I mean, everyone, overwhelmingly, wants to throw * out of office, right? Oh, wait...

[J.C.M.]

11. Good post

I think it's a given that if the Chinese were landing on the beaches of California most of us would join. I would, I mean I've already served in the US Army - this time it would the Canadian Army!

I refuse to fight in a BS war like in Iraq. I like life too much.

[Blue Wally]

30. But

"My dad says that people were lined up around the block to sign up after Pearl Harbor. They had a draft then, but many people were eager to serve."

Yeah, in 1941-early 1942.

How many l;ines were there at recruiting offices in 1944 when serious casualties needed to be replaced?? We needed the draft then.

[murielm99]

35. You really do need to find some older people to discuss

this with, or some oral histories.

My dad went in 1943 -- when he was 17. He and many of his friends were eager to go when they were still very young.

I know other older men who tried to lie about their ages to get in. Some of them were disappointed that they missed the war, or got in at the very end.

Based on what I have seen, heard, read and listened to, people did not shy away because of the reports of serious casualties. It was unpopular to be a conscientious objector.

Of course they needed a draft to keep troop strength up. But it was not because people were objecting to the war, or afraid of being a casualty. There was widespread support for this war, and most young men were eager to go. The draft was more a matter of logistics.

I don't think it can be compared to Nam or to what is happening now. I think a draft was justified during WWII, but not now.

[Blue Wally]

36. I did.

I was born in 1939. My father had a reserve commission (Horse Cavalry-Michigan State College-1935). I remember taking the train from Detroit to Hattieburg, MS and seeing him at Camp Shelby. There was a lot of support for the war (fueled by a lot of racial hatred for the "dirty japs"). My father was gone from Jan 1942 to Dec 1945 (Guadalcanal, Munda, New Guinea, and Lingayen Gulf).

I also have a copy of the US Army official history "The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops" and doucmentations of the discussion of whether or not to draft 17 year olds and pre-Pearl Harbor fathers in 1944.

Believe me, even with enthusiasm for the war, we never would have kept up the strength without the draft regardless of the enthusiasm for defeating our enemies.

[K-W]

17. Not anti-democratic really.

It is against the spirit of freedom. It is a form of government slavery. But rule by the people has little to do with the situation. The republicans show us very clearly that plenty of people are willing to vote for a war they arent willing to fight in.

[Bucky]

18. Nah, not if it's a constitutionally declared war. We have that, right?

Obviously there have been drafts in the past in a real democracy. The problem only comes when it's a draft for a war for which the democracy is not united. Or in this case a war which was never declared by a legal procedure.

[K-W]

20. Yah, the draft isnt anti democratic the war is.

It is also, as you stated unconstitutional. Congress never approved this war. It is also unconstitutional in that it violates the UN charter.

[sweetheart]

28. "draft for defending our shores, voluntary for plundering others"

If the nation needs be defended, and signups are short, then i see
no issue with the draft... but no nation has attacked america, and
this war is a form of grand larceny, illegal theft and invasion.

Then all soldiers should have the voluntary choice to not be
involved. It is abuse of making war that is root. Somehow bombing
has made war so cheap in casualty terms, that a criminal executive
can start a war without the constitution, and without a scream of
horror as they override the constitution.

Given that the constitution is void, it is the duty of every american
drafted to serve, to serve the constitution and to not participate...
to oppose, block and otherwise hinder those who've hyjakked the
constitution.

Heck, look at DU, did anyone have to draft these true patriots to
defend the constitutional right to free speech by exercising it?
If bush had not subverted the constitution in coup-2000, would there
be 50,000 volunteers speaking up in defense of the constitution?

[sangh0]

22. Some people have an odd idea of democracy

They seem to think it means "we all can do whatever we want" when it really means you sometimes have to bend to wishes of the majority. A draft doesn't infringe on any rights so long as it is created using due process.

The right uses similar logic to argue that income taxes are confiscatory.

[truhavoc]

26. The problem though is when you have a majority party

that does not listen to the majority public interest. Do you think that anyone could win an election if they came out in support of a draft? Democracy should work to reflect the public will, but we have these cons who do not care about the public because they know they can pull the wool over their eyes.

We are taking as well that only the lower class will join the armed forces without being forced via draft. Like I mentioned, a worthy war should transcend all stereotypes when it comes to those willing to serve. I also feel that young women along with young men should be subject to draft laws.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. I agree. nt

[mmonk]

25. If they are planning

a world war then it will take a draft since it still takes a lot of people to conquer and rule no matter how sophisticated the weaponry.

[Jim__]

27. No. The draft is not the most undemocratic practice.

A system that allocates the most critical and the most dangerous duties to that part of society that reaps the least benefits from the society, is the most undemocratic practice. Of course, poor people join the military because they choose to join and they have as much choice as the filthy rich who choose not to join the military. Of course that's correct who could possibly deny it.

If the US had a fair and equitable draft today, we would not have invaded Iraq.

[Surf Cowboy]

32. I think that people's votes should be recorded nationally, and that,

when a man (or woman) votes for the party that starts the war (and/or continues to prosecute it), their names are entered into a selective service filter so that their children are the first to be called up.

Then maybe we'd see some conscientious voting.

[Kitsune]

33. Frankly, I think any war kills democracy on both sides. *nt*