Slashdot Mirror
House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2
The House of Representatives voted on bill to reinstate the draft by Democrat Charles Rangel (NY), and defeated it soundly, 402-2. The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it. The rumors reached urban legend status, leading the House Republicans to take the uncommon step of voting on a bill that was not under remotely serious consideration. The two voting in favor of the bill were Democrats John Murtha (PA) and Pete Stark (CA), who was one of the cosponsors. Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will not address the issue.
U.S. Plans targeted Draft for Computer Personnel
So while the wheels are turning putting things into place, the house votes this issue away.
What's to stop them from reintroducing it (or a similar bill) immediately *after* the election?
If our politicans routinely acted ethically, I wouldn't be worried, but right now I'm looking for my tin-foil hat!
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft (I don't think any politician in his right mind would publically support a draft today, except to make a point), but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.
Rob
That said, I don't see how anyone thought this was a serious issue, or that by electing Bush we would be bringing back the draft (as has been insinuated by some small groups, not the DNC as far as I know). First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).
My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)? I would piss off your voters, it would mean more wealthy people in the service (aren't republicans supposed to do things to FAVOR the wealthy?). The idea has never made sense to me.
Lets face it. Bringing back the draft has NO support. With the exception of a crackpot here or there, I would expect France to try to annex the US before I would expect the draft to have a real chance at comming back.
I'd also like to thank /. for pointing out that the only representatives pushing this were democrats. Whenever I've heard activists saying Bush would bring back the draft, they always fail to mention that part. Also note that CBS was snookered again the other day when they had some lady crying about how Bush would bring back the draft and her son would go get killed in Iraq. It turned out she was a known anti-Bush activist.
This was never a serious issue (in that it was not where near likely), but it has been interesting in the way of seeing how fast an urban legend can take hold. I heard a story (about a week ago) about a kid who convinced a friend to shoot him in the foot so he wouldn't get drafted. Then when he was at the hospital, it was pointed out to him that there was no draft.
How could two kids (they must have been high-school aged if they were worried about being drafted) not know there was no draft in the first place?
--End Mini-Rant---
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Okay, did the dems seriously believe that people would fall for this? Or did they thinnk the repubs were so stupid and warmongering that they would support it even if it shot down their president's campaign? I don't think that kind of really blatant political manuevering would work, even in the U.S.; you have to make it more subtle.
I have been thinking though, that it might be in the best interests of the dems to just let Bush win this election and try to get their man in office in 2008. Think about it this way: no matter who's in office, a lot of bad shit is going to happen. There's going to be another terrorist attack sooner or later, Iraq is going to get worse, and the economy probobly won't improve anytime soon. If Kerry gets in this year, a lot of people might blame him for bad stuff that happens on his watch, and go "Look what happened when we voted democrat". It might be better for them to just let Bush deal with the consequences of his actions and let people see how bad his ideas really were, kina like how Nixon created a lot of disgust for the republicans after re-election.
But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.
Personally, I wish the draft would go back into effect.
Every day, I come to work and listen to chickenhawks go on about how we should crush Iraq, Iran, N Korea, etc. Then I go to the bar and every other person seems to be talking about how brave GWB is for sending someone else's kids off to fight. Then, I go home and turn on the news and get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.
Now, it is obvious this pro-war talk is coming from people who know for a fact they will face no personal danger to themselves. With a fair draft, we could start sending these people over who support this mess so much. Let them and their kids go breath some DU dust, smell burning/decomposing bodies, watch a few friends die horrible deaths, and be forced to live off a private's salary. I'd be willing to bet we'd get the hell out of Iraq and distance ourselves from most of the conflicts people make such a big stand on.
So, my hat is off to the 2 people in our government who actually understand why a draft is important. It is too bad the rest of the nation doesn't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is.
Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.
Who would freak if the draft was reinstated, because it would require years to reactivate old training bases and divert seasoned combat troops back state side to teach the draftees? The Pentagon.
Who actually wants a draft? Nobody, except, possibly, a few radical leftists who want to be able to say "we told you so".
Clear, Dark Skies
One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
During tonight's debate, John Edwards stated that John Kerry and He would "raise the active-duty forces by 40,000" hmmm that sounds like it might involve some sort of draft... what other incentive can they offer to entice more active duty forces during a war time?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The problem with this is twofold. First, the powerful will find a way to keep their kids out of harm's way no matter what laws are passed (even if the National Guard is no longer a safe haven).
Second, even if it were to soften the stance of some hawks, it would likely not do so until after a lot of kids (like my 17 year old son) get their asses shot off.
The problem with your argument (and I totally agree with you, in theory) is that it's easy for the privileged to avoid getting drafted. You only have to look at the same chickenhawks in this administration who are pushing the ongoing war on terrorism that managed to avoid any real military service of their own back when they had a draft.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily. This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)
War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.
That is what reinstating the draft would accomplish. Along with getting enough troops to do the whole thing right; something which anyone serving should want to happen. To say that draftees are no good at fighting spits in the face of many, many veterans that have served in past wars (WWI,WWII, Vietnam...) and performed admirably. As a veteran I can speak for myself (and not everyone else, as you seemed to think you are entitled) when I say that everyone in a democracy should be forced to serve - if not in the military, then in some form of civil duty - to enforce the need to participate. Maybe then we would not have presidents elected with less than half of the voters, which compromise less than half the eligible voting population!
As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily.
Exactly, they are there voluntarily. How would you feel if you volunteered to do something good for your country, and got spit on for it? You probably wouldn't volunteer again, nor would others be encouraged to do so. Support your troops!
This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)
Volunteer soldiers DO have families and friends too.
War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money.
Ok, the military is not a free education and exercise program. That comes as a perk to the real job, which is being a soldier. And what do soldiers do? Go to battle. That's the job description. Soldiers know what they are in for when they volunteer, although they may hope that they don't see battle.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all,
Um, you do realize that both French and German troops are currently in Afghanistan, and they have been there for quite a while. Even the American commander in Afghanistan said he counts the French troops among the best he has. Last time I checked, large parts of Afghanistan are deserts, and very rough deserts at that.
Maybe you should stop watching so much Bill O'Reilly, and oh I dunno, go learn a fact or two, then come back and we can talk.
Monstar L
I don't see what that has to do with it. It's not like we get to decide if we go to war. There's no public vote for it.
And I doubt any congressmen will be drafted.
All we can do is then vote out the congressmen whom we disagree with.
This space intentionally left blank.
I will be completely useless
That's a cop out. Many conscientious objectors served valiantly as medics or in other capacities that did not require them to kill. These people were as brave and honorable as those who fought on the front lines, with whom they worked. (In a way more so, because they couldn't defend themselves)
We really didn't learn any lessons from Vietnam at all did we?
Sure we did. The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
That doesn't really make sense though: rich people have always been able to avoid the draft, while poor people were always stuck with it. Introducing a draft does little to nothing to change the rich-poor divide in the armed services. Further, except in times of great conflict, the United States, like all liberal democracies, has avoided compulsory military service, opting instead for a fully civilian-controlled volunteer army. Mandating that kids join the lowest ranks isn't going to change how the Generals fight America's war either.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?
Rob
This is a good point. If "the Democrats" were behind this bill, they would have voted along the party lines, but this was not the case, only one person voted for the bill. Please do not make broad statements with little to no evidence to back them up, or did you take the Bush school of politics? One person voting for a bill does not equal a Democratic ploy.
zosxavius photography
Congressman Rangel didn't even vote for the bill? Or did he just not show up?
I hope this puts to rest the rumors about the Republicans' desire to reinstate the draft. It's interesting that the only person to even introduce the idea in the legislature is a Democrat.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Right, b/c all those weapons* that were supposed to make war too terrible have put end to war.
Nuclear weapons have put an end to large scale wars. Do you seriously think that if it wasn't for nukes WW2 wouldn't have been proceeded by WW3 in short order?
Nukes raise the cost of war to the point where it is unthinkable. There's simply nothing worth fighting over badly enough to risk New York or Moscow (and the millions of people therein) being turned into glass parking lots.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.