The Draft Is Coming!

[Printo]

Here it is folks, just came into Congress last week:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393

Discuss!

[Starwind]

Land of the free!

[RonPaul_SantaMonica]

2007. Old bill Sir. Plus the intent is not to introduce the draft, just prove that war mongerers will not vote for it because it will result in their kids getting drafted.

[ItsTime]

their kids will never get drafted and if they do, they will stay here with office jobs just like every other war we have ever fought.


2007. Old bill Sir. Plus the intent is not to introduce the draft, just prove that war mongerers will not vote for it because it will result in their kids getting drafted.

[AlbemarleNC0003]

2007. Old bill Sir. Plus the intent is not to introduce the draft, just prove that war mongerers will not vote for it because it will result in their kids getting drafted.

Or to make us complacent when one bill makes it through.

/not a believer, completely.

[roguepatriot]

Between this and that BS tax plan Rangel should be run out of office.

[Paulitics08]

There already is selective service. All this would do is make women have to register too.

Selective Service is against the constitution... 13th Amendment

[amistybleu]

It does say that it is legislation for 2007-2008. :mad:

[sweetworld731]

and, even if a bill is introduced it has a long way to go before it gets passed...lots of stupid bills get introduced that don't get passed. no freaking out yet

[Printo]

Its definitely a good piece of evidence to show to all those uneducated neocons. Watch them wise up when they found out that they'll have to go over there and fight their war!

[luvthedoc08]

i really doubt they would risk a draft with the current sentiment in this country, but if they try it you can bet i'm outta here, or i'll be burning the draft notices, both sound good to me.

[allyinoh]

Is it bad to say that if there was a draft and I was drafted that I would go MIA?

[thegr8drronpaul]

Even the thought of this scares the **** out of me. My son is 3 right now, so this is my motivation to work my butt off tomorrow.

[Scribbles]

20 years later and Congressman Rangel is still popping up as the enemy of the day lol.

[ItsTime]

I think the same way about my daughter... women will be drafted too a bullet catcher is a bullet catcher.. I think my blood pressure is way to high right now.




Even the thought of this scares the **** out of me. My son is 3 right now, so this is my motivation to work my butt off tomorrow.

[kyleAF]

Is it bad to say that if there was a draft and I was drafted that I would go MIA?

Well, I'm safe from any draft, as I am already in the Air Force, but I can say that I'd fully support you in your attempts to refuse to serve.

If it's not voluntary and free, it's not worth supporting...IMO

I don't think it'll come any time soon though personally. I don't see us invading anyone else (hopefully...sigh: ایران) any time soon, though I wouldn't put it past the politicians to call for some long distance bombing...

[Chernitsky]

Rangel does this all the time because he knows it will never pass

it shows the rich will never sacrifice their kids for war

[RickNHouston]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SORRY GUYS ... JUST RAN ACROSS THIS !!! FUCKING GEEDUBYA IS AT IT AGAIN!!

MUST READ !!!



Bush Shakes Up ‘08 Iraq Debate
By: Nicole Belle on Sunday, January 13th, 2008 at 7:00 AM - PST Apparently, Bush has a plan to take away the Democratic frontrunners’ plans to use Iraq as a campaign issue.

Of course, the Republican candidates are entirely unaffected–seeing as they want to stay away from Iraq as much as possible–but Bush’s actions are non-political, make no mistake about that.

(A)s Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a “Hoo-ah” and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race–and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: “We’re putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,” he told reporters. “The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.” The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House–in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind.[..] In fact, one Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.

The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders.

It’s not bad enough the damage he’s done in the eight years he’s occupied the White House, he needs to continue the damage beyond his term

[RickNHouston]

2007. Old bill Sir. Plus the intent is not to introduce the draft, just prove that war mongerers will not vote for it because it will result in their kids getting drafted.

im just guessing but, is anybdy in here old enuff to remember Vietnam draft ?

[mathew4ronpaul2008]

Here it is folks, just came into Congress last week:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393

Discuss!
they cannot force you to serve in the military even if you are "drafted" it is still voluntarily only. Here is a little secret:
by law you must show up to get a physical and tests done;next you are put into PT(physical training) ; this part is important....now remember WHEN THE DRILL SGT yells "ALL JOINING THE ARMY(or military) step forward....DO NOT STEP FORWARD!!!!!!! You yell , I (your name) DO NOT VOLUNTEER to be drafted into the military,and I hold my stance under protection of the 13th amendment. They can intimidate,ridicule,and maybe beat you up....but they cannot force you to go into the military . Once people step forward in the line-up,they volunteered.

[ErikBlack]

That bill will never pass. The govt hasn't even had the balls to institute a draft since Vietnam even though from a troop level position it would be a smart thing to do. We are far from requiring mandatory military service.

In different circumstances I would be a supporter of mandatory service. If this nation practiced a non-interventionist neutral foreign policy like Switzerland I think it would be good to require all men to serve 1 year in the military, like they do in Switzerland, knowing that their service will not be abused to wage aggressive wars or fight political battles.

It may not be completely libertarian but I think it is a fair trade. If the country provides certain benefits to its citizens its not unfair to require the citizens to participate in its national defense.

But there is no way that the young men and women of this country should be forced to participate in the undeclared, aggressive, political, ungodly wars we have been waging for the last 100 years.

[Knightskye]

108th Congress: S. 89 (Status: Dead)
108th Congress: H.R. 163 (Status: Failed House (Bipartisan opposition.))
109th Congress: H.R. 2723 (Status: Dead)
109th Congress: H.R. 4752 (Status: Dead)

Chill, man. Same bill failed four times - IN A REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS.