I can't find my tinfoil hat but does it seem odd that Democrats are introducing a bill to reinstate the draft? During an election year I might add. They SAY it's in the name of equality but it appears like they want to sway young voters in a subversive manner because it's unlikely the news would tought it as a democratic bill. The mind set of the youngens would be if they vote Bush out there would be peace everywhere.

hose who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country. For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance," said Democratic representative Charles Rangel in January 2003, when he and Democratic senator Fritz Hollings introduced a bill for a universal military draft.
The revised draft calls for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 26 to enlist in the military, including women. College students are not exempt from service, and neither are conscientious objectors, who would be placed in non-combative service.
In addition, the "Smart Border Declaration" of 2001 between the U.S. and Canada would monitor draft-dodgers from the U.S., implementing a "pre-clearance agreement" of people attempting to enter the country.
Though the proposed draft sounds like an effort to boost Bush's war on terror, it was actually introduced by Rangel, who voted against the war with Iraq, and Hollings-both liberals.
The new draft is meant to "call the bluff" on conservative war hawks. In other words, Rangel and Hollings wanted to demonstrate to Bush the severity of committing to a potentially long-term war.
Rangel said he introduced the bill "in hopes that those people who make the decisions to go to war, to attack Iraq, would be better influenced against it if they had kids that would be placed in harm's way, or if they felt closer to the shared sacrifice that we often times talk about."
Although instituting a draft during the current war is considered unnecessary by most, many feel that revisions to make a draft more equal are needed.
"There were people that had a means of avoiding the draft (during Vietnam)," said Jerry Joplin, professor of Justice and Policy Studies, who served in the Vietnam War. "If you're going to make it a fair process, you've got to eliminate those class issues."
Charlie White, Director of Information Services, was a conscientious objector during Vietnam. He agrees that there are class inequalities in the military. "If that's truly an injustice, then maybe there's some validity in it (the revision)," White said. "A piece of what's wrong with the military now is that the wealthy and the educated don't have to participate."

no one would object to having that outsourced, I guess ...

If it's really needed, do it.
But if it's just a way to "make a point"........

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

Wow! That is old.

Kind of a grandstanding bill meant more for effect than enything else.

Almost as good as the Republican "The World Is Safer Without Saddam Hussein" resolution. I'd imagine like much of the UN security council resolutions, its probably not worth the paper its printed on.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040317-110745-8014r
Aaaaah the partisan rangling.

Perhaps it's political "suicide" but is there a war on terror or not? To Americans, could it be that this war on terror is more akin to our war on drugs, something for someone else, like a govenment agency to deal with?

Excellent! That's exactly wht the "peace at any price", UN-kiss-ups want, isn't it?

B

The world would be 10x more safer without a lunatic in Pyongyang; without a Pakistani scientist selling nuclear technology like a MLM business; without drug lords operating with impunity in Central and South America . . . it's all a matter of priority.

I'm going to do something I hate... answer a question with a question.

Narwhal,

How is the world safer without Saddam Hussein? I don't think that this is an indisputable fact regardless of whether or not the resolution passed. How important is it to pass a resolution that declares it? If the world is truly safer then wouldn't we all recognize it (like when Hitler was defeated)? I don't know whether a resolution was passed saying that the world was safer without Hitler, maybe there was..... But I'd still think it was a silly thing to do (unnecessary).

All in all I'm happy to see Hussein out of power and I'm SURE the Iraqis are safer, but I still have some doubts about how the world fared in all this. All the same I don't hear anyone trying to pass a resolution that says the world is not safer without Saddam Hussein.

In my mind, if you intend to posit something, you need to back it up, not the other way around.

Since I would be getting called I really hope they do not. I don't want to fight for something I don't think we should be doing, but if called I guess I would serve and just keep my mouth shut.
My uncle tells me about Vietnam and how he went in supporting it and came out with a way different view of government and the things they do.
How exactly would the draft work? A lottery type thing?

Condescending????

So far you've called me a college boy and now a woman! Hmmm pot calling the kettle black.

I appreciate your answer and your viewpoint. As I said, I haven't made up my mind on the topic yet.

Anyhow, my original post was not intended to debate what was safer, but rather to bring attention to the general political grandstanding that goes on both sides of the aisle.

In both of these cases (Draft & Resolution) I believe that congress was wasting their time and our money on political rhetoric.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a place for everyone's son and daughter in the Texas or Alabama Air National Guard, there's college in England, and if you need any more advice on slipping past the draft rolls, you might want to consult with Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him) Trent Lott, Dick Cheney (he requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"), John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, (cysts on his butt) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

You're on the threshold of being a libertarian. Just take another couple of steps....

B

There's a tension between the needs of the state and the needs of the individual. If the state believes itself threatened (if a state can believe, just accept the anthropomorphism for now) then it has the moral obligation to protect itself. But sometimes an individual's moral purpose is in opposition.

Which takes precedence and why?

A fine, brilliant playwrite, Sophocles, asked this same question in dramatic form thousands of years ago. A wonderful read very good for the mind at this time and all time.

http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/bates017.html

B

Aint it just like the Hippies to make a bill based on emotions?

I think the draft is set up nicely the way it is, if we need it its there other than that, well theres plenty of armed service men/women now that a draft isnt required 24/7 to ensure the safety of this country. And its stupid, down right stupid, to think that the cost of living in this country requires your life and death. Obviously you havent noticed all the illegal immigrants in this country? The people on Welfare? The transients? The bleeding heart hippie government haters? Its not a right or a privelege, its a joke to live in this country, doesnt mean much anymore. Even the French now mock, taunt and insult the US for gods sake. Hey, I dunno bout yall but that makes me feel real pathetic....

CE, maybe a French Mockery Legion?

Into which we recruit a phalanx of Parisiens to look down their noses and tut-tut condescendingly. They could delay table service, not provide napkins and ignore the barbarian enemies of "Liberte fraternite et equalite?"

Has a Frenchman fought and died for that sentiment in fifty years?

B