The Draft

TC

TC

Resident Agitator
I know that we are not to be starting political threads. And this thread is not intended to be political. What I do want to do is share my fear/disgust for the draft, which is a bill right now, trying to be passed by congress.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html

In this version of the draft, men and women, ages 18 - 26 will be called upon. There has been a deal made with Canada, so that they will not grant citizenship to draft dodgers. And conscientious objectors will not be put in combat, but used in other "non-violent" ways.

As a 19 year old male, this scares the hell out of me. Especially as I am a pacifist and refuse to fight, but I also refuse to serve in their army, because I do not believe in the cause. Does this frighten anyone else?
 
Re: The Draft

I am with you, man!

One of the many reasons I am here (Canada & USA) is that I didn't agree with mandatory military service in my old country (Czechoslovakia), and on top of things, in the winter and spring of 1989 it looked more like a civil war was coming than the quick meltdown of the iron curtain that actually happened in November of that year. I'd do anything to avoid the draft. My wife got me out of it, but it's a long story, yet to be made into a movie ;D.

And, to be honest, Canada was my choice of immigration because of somewhat more peaceful nature than the US - at least that's what I thought back then. I learned to love the US, and I really don't know what to tell people who are potentially put in an armed conflict against their will...

There is one difference, though: You and I live in a free, democratic society (and everything else that comes with it). One day we may decide that we need to defend what we have - like freedom to participate in forums like this, and make films where the only voice that tells you what and how to film is your inner voice. That is worth defending, even if you are a pacifist, because the alternative is much uglier than dying in combat - however cynical this may sound.

The alternative is the kind of society in which I grew up - where you can't listen to your favorite music because it happens to come from beyond the closed border, you can't make film not only because any film making equipment is out of reach but mainly because there is a law that gives the state the monopoly on film (I am not kidding). Where committees decide who will go to school and who will end up digging uranium ore for the nukes of your country's occupying force...

I am a sort of a pacifist myself, but I seriously think that if I had a choice between going back to that old world and quick death by a bullet, it would not be as tough a choice... thank goodness it's only a hypothetical choice.

Did I say in an earlier post I would steer clear of politics? Sorry...

A draft for peaceful purposes might not be such a bad idea, though - it all depends how it would get implemented. I think that a lot of young kids don't have an appreciation of life. If you learn how to fight a fire, or treat someone who's been injured, or learn to fly a plane, it could be useful in many areas of civilian life. Yes, I know - the hawks in Pentagon probably have their own ideas about it...

Why don't you make a doc about how you and your fellow young Americans feel about the possibility of a draft? You can then send it to your senators and congressmen... Pen is mightier than sword, but pen can only write words. Picture (a MOVING picture) is worth of thousand words. Oh, how nice to use cliches!

Is it just me, or do I have the tendency to write long posts?

Okay - till the next time,

all the best!

Jerry
 
Re: The Draft

There are excpetions to a draft such as if you are an only child, college deferrments, and joining the Peace Corps, which is a very noble cause.

Also, religious exceptions, and also certain political affiliations could exclude you.

I don't think though it will pass congress and the white house, something very drastic will have to happen. Such as a full out war waged against us from other "Official Nations" not Terrorists who have no country.

Now if North Korea or Iran develop and deploy successful nuclear weapons tests, then there could be a draft passed. Though the mushroom cloud reported in North Korea does make me nervous.

The only nation right now that actually concerns me and could wage a full out assault is China. China is a sleeping giant, when she wakes up the world will know it.

I saw somehting on TV that said if everyone in China congregated in one place and jumped un and own at the same time it would cause a tidal wave that would wipe out half our country on the West Coast.
 
Re: The Draft

Oh, that's another thing I forgot to add, they're not doing college defferments anymore! You are allowed to finish out the current semeter, and then you have to go. :(

I just hope it doesn't pass, so I don't have to deal with it.
 
Re: The Draft

Let not your heart be troubled!  I could take you with me to Peru along with my wife, bring your DVX, we could do an extended documentary......
 
Re: The Draft

Hey Boda i wanna go.. lol..

Actually im 36 so they wont draft me.. If it were that bad though that they really had to force peoples participation.. Id probably join up.

Hey they need someone to order them yougins to engage them forward emplacements. ;D
 
Re: The Draft

We fly out Dec. 29-04 come back Jan. 15-05.
we have house and I have several single nieces ::) :-*
 
Re: The Draft

[quote author=bodaphoto link=board=Offtopic;num=1095907871;start=0#7 date=09/22/04 at 22:11:45]We fly out Dec. 29-04 come back Jan. 15-05.
we have house and I have several single nieces ::) :-*[/quote]

Fred, I've made my decision to go to Peru with you, draft or not. ;)
 
Re: The Draft

;D single neices.. wow.. Im sold! lol

BODA, TC and Fred; Machu Picchu or Bust! Great DVX material there man..
 
Re: The Draft

It's on

Ya know what's great about this board? Is that I read that bill, and was totally freaked out, and now after some witty banter I've calmed down quite a bit. Thanks guys! (still a bit nervous thought.)
 
Re: The Draft

Where did you get this information?

I would like to read and see the source that you have got the info from. I'm been hearing this for almost a year but its just people blabing bla bla and no one has anything to back it up.
 
Re: The Draft

I didn't make it to Machu Picchu, I got Montezumos revenge both times I have been to Peru. Where my wife is from there are some ruins called Pacchucamuc, which was a temple where they actually performed sacrifices overlooking the Pacific Ocean at sunset. At this same place is very maintained ruin call "The Hall of Virgins" where teh Inca Royalty would choose a wife. My friend that we travel with referred to as "Team USA Locker room", my wife doesn't like the reference too much.

Glad we could help you feel a little better TC.
 
Re: The Draft

thats a old news...

here something I've found...recently...

$28 Million to get DRAFT READY BY JUNE 15, 2005

Oh, so there are "no plans" to re-instate the draft? No, there are just EXERCISES and $28 million extra to get the whole Selective Service ready and open for business by June 15, 2005!!

Read this official budget carefully and you will see that Bush is gearing up the draft--there is no longer any doubt about it. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005, that the system is ready for activation within 75 days. So on June 15, 2005, expect the announcement that the first draft lottery since Vietnam will be held for 20 year-olds.

Here is where the DU rubber hits the road, my friends. This is a DU EXCLUSIVE as far as I know, so please read this one carefully and let me know what we are going to do about it. To put this all into context, the SSS has lain basically dormant for decades and now in the 2004 budget, Bush has added $28 million to get the whole thing ready to fly in 2005. The 4 performance goals below basically make the system ready for activation.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

<snip>

This FY 2004 APP identifies the activities and strategies that will take place during the
fiscal year to achieve Agency goals and objectives. It also identifies relevant performance
measurement target goals to be achieved. The performance goals for FY 2004 are:

1. Develop an Area Office Prototype Exercise that will test the Health
Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) work flows and support
programs.

2. Redefine Agency infrastructure based on a Quinquennial Workload
Study.

3. Prepare and conduct an Area Office Prototype Exercise which tests
the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of the
first Armed Forces Examination Orders.

4. Ensure 90% of people tested are capable of implementing activation
procedures.

5. Ensure that 95% of the predefined readiness objectives are attained
and validated during an Area Office Prototype Exercise.

6. Train 90% of assigned State Directors (SDs) and Reserve Force
Officers (RFOs) on HCPDS and Timed-Phased Response (TPR)
functions and responsibilities.

7. Attain a 92% or greater compliance rate for men 18 through 25 years
old.

8. Attain and appoint Registrars in 85% of the Nation’s high schools.

9. Obtain 75% of all registrations electronically.

10. Maintain an average systems change request implementation time of
39 days.

11. Maintain a functional proponent and customer satisfaction level of
87%.

12. Have a telephone call completion rate of 93% or higher.

13. Answer correspondence in less than 10 days.

14. Train 90% of assigned SDs and RFOs on Alternative Service plans
and procedures.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005. This report will address attained versus
planned levels of performance, explain unattained target levels, and identify where and
how strategies, performance goals, and performance indicators should be changed to
ensure that the SSS reaches its strategic and annual goals and objectives.




VOTE FOR BUSH IN 2004, BE DRAFTED IN 2005!!



"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Many people have been wondering if our President has secret plans to reinstate the draft. This website will provide absolute proof that Bush is making plans to reinstate the draft by the middle of 2005.

In the last few months Bush has launched a recruiting drive for people to work on the draft boards around the country, the DefendAmerica government site posted an advert looking for volunteers, but when someone brought this to the attention of the press it was promptly removed, fueling rumours about the possibility of a draft.

There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25.

Senate Bill-
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:

House Bill-
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&

"We need this and we are going to get it"
--Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, talking about the Draft.

A memo leaked from the Whitehouse written by Paul Wolfowitz outlines the push for the draft currently being made by Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Paul Wolfowitz to reinstate the draft. Both have publicly denied pushing for a draft, but those familiar with the policies of these two hawks, as written about on the website of one of their thinktanks Project for a New American Century know they are both big fans of reinstating the draft, and sending tens of thousands of young Americans off to die.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a708.htm
 
Re: The Draft

That is kind of scary. I think what makes it the most scary is how much in there is left up to the president's choice. I mean, in Canada the prime minister has much less power than that. Decisions are made in Parliament with a house of representatives. On topics as big as something like this the parties usually give their representitives free reign on where to vote because if they didn't, there would be political chaos here. For smaller stuff they just always vote along party lines... also having a minority government helps balance things out a great deal...

What do you mean by deal with Canada about not granting citizenship to draft dodgers? Canada would never agree to that. Citizenship would work the same as it always has and even draft dodgers would be allowed to attain citizenship through normal ways. Also, Canada has stood firm that it will not export people in situations where they will be sent to war. If Canada does not have a drafting policy then it will not export people for draft dodging as it isn't illegal in Canada. Canada will not export any criminals if they have committed a crime that is not illegal here. This is what happened during Vietnam and I doubt will change.

Canada may seem like a pretty laidback kind of country that will roll with whatever it's big brother the US says but that's very untrue. Canada will stick to it's policies regardless of what the US says. It will not export criminals if they will be sentenced to the death penalty in whatever country they'll be exported to as Canada does not agree with the death penalty. Sending them back to their country would be just as bad as sending them to the death penalty ourselves so we just don't do it. People have ended up getting life sentences for first degree murder in states that have the death penalty for this exact reason.
 
Re: The Draft

Isnt canada basically an extension of Great Britian?? i mean the queen is on your money?? I have never figured that out. Who really runs Canada.. Please dont flame me guys its a legitimate question.
 
Re: The Draft

The Canadian government runs Canada. It is an independant country although on formality and tradition we have a connection to the British empire. Our governor general is our connection to the british monarchy and there is a part in Canadian government that gives her special power over the government of Canada. The British government would never utilize this as Canada will then just write a new law that would take away that power completely and be voted on unilaterally in the Canadian government. It's more as a custom and tradition and gesture of goodwill to our original government.

Canada does stand on it's own though. There are three levels of government. Federal, Provincial, and Municipal. Our federal government is made up of a house of representatives, a senate, and supreme court. The house of representatives is the elected government of Canada. It is made up of individuals in various ridings that are elected by the citizens in that riding. These representatives often have a political affiliation with a governmental party. These parties are similar to Democrats or Republicans. In Canada there are the Liberals, New Democratic Party, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, Progressive Conservatives, and Green Party. There are various other parties with specific reasons for being setup but don't have particularly good philosophies on running a country. The political party with the most seats in the house of commons (most representatives elected) elects a Prime Minister. This Prime Minister is the figurehead of the country and speaks on behalf of it as the head of the country.

A party like Bloc Quebecois' purpose was to seperate Quebec from the rest of Canada. All laws in Canada are written in the house of commons where they are voted on. Depending on the philosophies of particular parties they will vote in a certain fashion. Quebec almost seperated from canada because enough members were elected in the house of commons to pass a bill that would allow quebec to hold a referendum on whether or not they wanted to become a seperate political entity. The referendum failed and the party lost a lot of support so quebec is still a part of canada. There is no one individual who makes decisions. The decisions are made by a group of individuals and then voted upon. Once it gets past the house it goes through the senate who are appointed by the government in power although they can't be removed by the government in power i believe. They are usually learned people with strong political ability and have experience with politics. The bill needs to be passed by them. If they don't accept it, it goes back to the house of commons to be rewritten and revoted upon.

Basically all law in Canada is created with a group of people who have a similar political belief. Some political parties share beliefs and that is how laws are passed... Liberals are more leftwing of conservatives although conservatives here in canada are more liberal than democrats in the US. New Democrats in Canada are even more leftwing than liberals. Bloc Quebecois tends to be more conservatives than liberals and likes to oppose the government in power. Mix all of these together and you end up with a pretty balanced government that fights over laws and usually the Canadians get what they want because they vote for a politcal philosophy not on an individual although their representive should be an individual they believe will represent them properly in government.

I believe less can go wrong with the Canadian system of government although it is more expensive, slower, and more tedious than the American system. Each has their upside and downsides, I personally prefer the Canadian/British style of government.

Btw, Canada didn't go to Iraq although Britain did. It's a good example of how Canada is a country on it's own.

PS: The reason Canada still has those ties to Great Britain was because we didn't leave forcefully as a Country. Canada seperated from GB politically and so we've become more independant gradually so still have a few things left over from the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top