The Draft will Return Regardless of who wins Nov

[One Way]

Draft Riots Feared: No Matter Who Wins in November, Draft Will Return

American Free Press | August 9 2004

Regardless of the outcome of next November's presidential election, the federal government will initiate a military draft in 2005, unless there is a dramatic slackening of the need for U.S. troops for the ongoing war in Iraq and for

[apothanein kerdos]

The bills, S.89 and H.R.163 are real.

But they are not new.

An eRumor started circulating in June, 2004 warning that the draft was only a year away.

In reality, these twin bills have existed since 2003 and have never gotten out of committees.

In other words, they are stagnant.

Nobody in Washington seriously expects a draft and certainly not by 2005.

It's known as the "reinstate draft" bill or the "Universal National Service Act of 2003."

The wording of the bill says it is "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."

It would require U.S. citizens and other residents, both male and female, between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve two years of "national service."

The reason the bills have gotten attention in 2004 is the military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terrorism.

There has been debate about troop strength in Iraq and the status of all the U.S. Armed Forces.

The U.S. Selective Service, however, says that despite the Internet stories, the agency is not getting ready to conduct a draft.

It says it is ready to do so should the President and Congress decide, but "that responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new."

The Selective Service further says that "...both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft."

And the truth shall set you free

[Steff]

The draft is very unconstitutional. If people don't believe in the war we are fighting then we shouldn't be at war.

[apothanein kerdos]

The draft is very unconstitutional. If people don't believe in the war we are fighting then we shouldn't be at war.

*Points to my previous post*

Also, I fail to see how the draft is unconstitutional. I mean, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 really has some good evidence for this.

[Steff]

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

During coloniel times the Militias raised were not draft, they were volunteer. Read the letters of Thomas Jefferson, Washinton, Franklin, and about a dozen other founding fathers. All were against forced conscription.

Throughout history it has been shown that drafted soldiers are far less effective than volunteer ones as well.

I support that if they are going to draft people, the lawmakers should be the first to be drafted regardless of age. If their age prevents combat, then they can be given other duties.

To quote Ron Paul -

Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War, which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an anti-draft attitude, which is still alive today.

Fortunately, we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing, once and for all, the useless Selective Service System. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world..

A return to the spirit of the Republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty.

[ted]

I support that if they are going to draft people, the lawmakers should be the first to be drafted regardless of age. If their age prevents combat, then they can be given other duties.

Good one.

Then again, they'd just mess THAT job up too!

I'm not much for the draft. I think the Bible addresses this issue somewhere also. I can't remember in what book Leviticus maybe. It says something about not compelling the weak or scared to war. Let them go home, basically. I'm sorry I can't remember the book, chapter or verse. It also says to release the newly married, also, for at least a year.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

I have no problem saying we should abolish the draft and go to volunteer soldiers. I was simply saying that it isn't against hte Constitution.

[followerofjesus]

nevermind

Edited August 12, 2004 by followerofjesus

[One Way]

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

During coloniel times the Militias raised were not draft, they were volunteer. Read the letters of Thomas Jefferson, Washinton, Franklin, and about a dozen other founding fathers. All were against forced conscription.

Throughout history it has been shown that drafted soldiers are far less effective than volunteer ones as well.

I support that if they are going to draft people, the lawmakers should be the first to be drafted regardless of age. If their age prevents combat, then they can be given other duties.

To quote Ron Paul -

Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War, which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an anti-draft attitude, which is still alive today.

Fortunately, we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing, once and for all, the useless Selective Service System. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world..

A return to the spirit of the Republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty.

I love Ron Paul. He sure has a way with words!

Plain old common sense is what he preaches.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Hey, River?

You would support President Bush more fervently if he were to set up a literal seat of government in Babylon? :x:

It's no surprise that you support Candidate Kerry, then... I'm sure he'll help his European friends to establish and strengthen their RRE. They may not want a literal seat of government in Iraq, but they won't disappoint you!

Your point was made.

I was just ribbin' you a bit, Brother. :il:

All the love I have in Christ,

and I know He's coming quickly,

NF