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.
Thank God. It was political smoke and mirrors anyways. As a veteran I can say without a doubt in my mind, no military members want draftees. If you can get enough people to serve voluntarily maybe you shouldn't be fighting.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
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
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.
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
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.
That may be YOUR argument, but that is not the argument of the emails that were going around to college students.
As for your argument. Rumsfeld (and by extension this administration) has been a big advocate for a numerically smaller, higher tech military for a very long time. I very much doubt Rumsfeld would EVER want a draft, which is just completely counter to his entire approach to the military.
On the other hand it was KERRY that pledged to enlarge the military by an additional 40,000 troops, has criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has criticized the planned drawdown of troops in Western Europe and South Korea. Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.
Bush IS a cowboy, he might get us into more wars. Then again Kerry is on record essentially favoring issuing an empty threat* a position that is perhaps even MORE risky in the long run. It is a dangerous world and even the most dovish President may (regretfully) find us in a war. Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?
*Voting FOR an war ultimatum to gain "diplomatic leverage", but then stating he could conceive of "no circumstances" where he would have followed through.
Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all, let alone for an extended trip to the desert.
Altrough there is no way that France will deploy troops for this war, I kindly remind you that in Gulf War 1, the French were present, and were the one who went the farest (sp?) in the desert. They penetrated further in Irak than any other nation, USA included.
Don't confuse the unwillingness to enter a war that 99% of the population opposes with its inability to do so.
The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).
That precision done, you won't in fact see French troops in Iraq. The idea here is that we did everything to prevent the war, and that means we don't have a duty to go there and fix what the Bush adminstration has fucked up. And I totally agree with that.