Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2 258

Posted by pudge from the that-was-easy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2 More

House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2

Comments Filter:

  • GOOD! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thief_inc ( 466143 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:46PM (#10447806) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Informative)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
      The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel to prevent wars. His stated intentions:
      ...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

      I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great resp

      • Re:GOOD! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ZenHarbinger ( 541888 )
        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.

      • Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by anaesthetica ( 596507 )
        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 Gener
      • ...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

        Ever hear him talk about it? When I was listening to an interview with him yesterday it sounded like what he really means is that he thinks all his collegues in congress are racists and wouldn't send our troops to war if there were more white people enlisted. Nice, huh?

        Either way, the last thing we need is a law that makes our government hesitate to use the military when it needs to.
      • The all of the U.S. armed forces are strictly volunteer only. When you choose to join the military you also choose to accept the risk that you might actually have to use all the training and equipment at your disposal and actually go to war.

        Nothing could be more equitable. Instutiting a draft will not improve this system. In fact, if Vietnam is any example, a draft would unfairly pull in working class people because they're less likely to be able to get exceptions because of college or a cushy tour in Nati

    • Re:GOOD! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MrWa ( 144753 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:39AM (#10448252) Homepage
      And maybe, if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

      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!

      • Re:GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jim_v2000 ( 818799 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:23AM (#10448377)
        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.
      • Ill start by saying I think the war was a mistake.

        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.

        This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars! You should not join the military for money, skills or anyother reas

        • This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars!

          And this is how the Army advertises to get people to sign up? Didn't think so. Most people do NOT join the military thinking they will get the chance to go be shot at or kill someone. Most join because they couldn't afford to go to college, weren't smart enough, or some other reason. A large portion do join because they understand the military and want to be part of it - that is

          • And this is how the Army advertises to get people to sign up? Most people do NOT join the military thinking they will get the chance to go be shot at or kill someone. Most join because they couldn't afford to go to college, weren't smart enough, or some other reason.

            I am not saying most people join for that reason, I am saying that those who do are perhaps too stupid to be given explosives. We average a war about every 15 years, hell Im not even 30 and we have had Two wars (Iraq /Afg 2003, and Iraq 1991)

      • Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by anaesthetica ( 596507 )

        ...if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

        This is just about the most anti-democratic statement I've ever heard on slashdot. Why parent thinks it's acceptable to run roughshod over people's freedoms simply to make a political point against a war they object to is inconceivable to me.

        • Agreed. This is social engineering at its worst - using the power of government to force citizens into involuntary servitude (that's what a draft is, folks) as a method of promoting peaceful thoughts? You don't have to be a diehard libertarian to object to this sort of interference in our personal lives.

          Look, if we were really in a fight for our survival (I'd include WWII in that) and the volunteer army wasn't big enough, I'd support the draft - and probably volunteer, if they could find me a job wrangli

  • Previous related article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neitzsche ( 520188 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:53PM (#10447838) Journal
    U.S. Plans targeted Draft for Computer Personnel [slashdot.org]

    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!

    • Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <mwheinz@m[ ]om ['e.c' in gap]> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:07AM (#10447906)
      Who introduced those bills? The democrats.

      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".

      • Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:21AM (#10447966) Journal
        Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

        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
      • The bill was never intended (by the democrat who introduced it) to be construed a a republican plot, or to ever go to a vote. It was a "what if" argument intended to make reprentatives consider the consequences to average citizens of voting in favor of unnecessary wars.
        • By inventing consequences after the fact?

        • Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by multimed ( 189254 )
          That's true. And there's something to be said for trying to get people especially politicians to actually stop and think about something. But it is absolutely slimy and dirty politics for Kerry et. al. to say say "If Bush wins he'll reinstate the draft" and use the bills as a evidence. The Replublicans has no choice but to bring it to a vote in order to kill the bill and kill the FUD.

      • Get your facts straight! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ZosX ( 517789 )
        Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

        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 t

      • And who voted for it? (Score:3, Informative)

        by mec ( 14700 )
        And who put the current draft registration system in place? Republican President Jimmy Carter. The bill was filibustered in the Senate by Democratic Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, but the Senate overrode the veto.

        Oh wait. Reality check. Carter was a Democrat, and the opposition and filibuster were conducted by Republicans.

  • Naughty, pudge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:55PM (#10447845) Journal
    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

    • No, the argument is (Score:4, Informative)

      by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <mwheinz@m[ ]om ['e.c' in gap]> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:03AM (#10447881)
      that the secret plan [snopes.com] is to pass those bills and have a fully operating draft by june of this year.

      Given how many paniced brothers and sisters of mine received that e-mail, the Republicans did the right thing.
      • I realize that there was a hoax going around the Internet about it, but what I meant is that the only serious argument about the draft is that it will be required if the Bush administration "stays the course." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

        Rob
        • that hoax quite seriously.

          In any case, I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

          Similarly, I think the odds of a President Kerry suddenly getting tens of thousands of French and German troops into Iraq to be long at best and more likely wishful. 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. P
          • I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

            But that would be flip-flopping, not staying the course!

            Rob
          • Yes, it is amazing to watch the leap of logic required to believe that Kerry is going to convince nations (with their own self-interest) to send their troops into the mess that is currently Iraq just so the US can lower its percentage of the casualties.

            That's a great sales pitch. US: "Hey France, we want you to take on 15% of our casualties...how's about it?" France: "Let's see, currently we're taking 0% casualties and we get to pontificate about the American Pig-Dogs at our leisure...er, how about NOT."

          • Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking (Score:4, Interesting)

            by totatis ( 734475 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:56AM (#10448931)
            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.

          • Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking (Score:4, Insightful)

            by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @07:06AM (#10449136) Homepage Journal
            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.
          • Similarly, I think the odds of a President Kerry suddenly getting tens of thousands of French and German troops into Iraq to be long at best and more likely wishful.

            The odds of Kerry getting us into another giant military option because he just fucking feels like it are pretty low, too.
    • 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.

      I find your lack of confidence disturbing.

      W

    • Re:Naughty, pudge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:54AM (#10448085)
      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.

      • Re:Naughty, pudge (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by ImaLamer ( 260199 )
        On the other hand it was KERRY that ... criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan

        "We never had enough troops on the ground."
        Paul Bremer, October 4th 2004

        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.

        It was Bush who ordered the military to stop using "Predator Drones" in their search for Osama bin Laden, not Kerry and the Democrats.
    • The current scheme is very clever and works, get the poorest kids and tell them they can go to college if they join the army.

      It works very well (in getting them in the first place at least). Now there are a couple of problems.

      1) Young Kids are pretty irresponsible but even in the media challenged present day US they must have noticed there is a good chance they might be killed or maimed.

      2) To continue the dominance of the middle east the US needs even more troops than it currently has out there. It cann

  • My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:00AM (#10447873) Homepage
    I've been staying away from the politics section (at least untill the election is over) because so many of the things I see make me very mad (the viewpoints), especially here on /. (which is quite liberal when I've very conservative).

    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---

    • 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).

      Not a problem if the House and Senate have a Republican majority. If Bush says we need the draft to pursue the so-called "War on Terror", he'll get the draft. He'll even put on a heart-felt press conference where he says he searched his soul and decided that a draft was needed, and in other interviews, he'll say that he knows God wanted him to do it.

      My
      • The US Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto's still dead and buried many years later in the US because of that vote even though the Senate's changed composition and Clinton's no longer president. Such a lopsided vote has a powerful influence that can stretch a very long time. A 400 vote margin in the House means that it would take us losing a city for a draft to get back on the table and even then it would be iffy.
    • I'm not sure what you have been reading, but NOT ONCE have I seen this mentioned anywhere without it clearly being stated that Democrats are behind the bill, unless you count unsubstatiated email.

    • "... especially here on /. (which is quite liberal when I've very conservative)."

      The words "liberal" and "conservative" have no precise meaning, and should not be used in a logical discussion.

      Supposedly, most Republicans are "conservative". But that makes no sense whatsoever. When Reagan was president, the U.S. government became by far the biggest debtor the world had ever seen. Then the "liberal" Democrat president Clinton reduced the debt enormously. Now the "conservative" Bush is borrowing money [brillig.com] a
    • Not to shit on your parade, but the checks and balances have been pissed on so many times with this administration that it's almost a joke to bring it up.

      Slice of PATRIOT, anyone?

  • Machivellian.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:05AM (#10447889) Journal
    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.
    • There are some Democrats hoping Kerry will lose so that Hillary can run in 2008; likewise there are some Republicans who want Kerry to win so they can avoid having to deal with a Madam President in 2009.
      • I've always said that "Hillary running for president" is a wet dream by Republicans, it's exactly the same as this draft thing: Republicans restarting the draft is a wet dream for Democrats.

        Neither is going to happen. Get out of your fantasy land.
        • It's not a wet dream for anybody because it would force people to realize how horrible the war really is. Once your child is forced to fight in a war that you are beginning to see no reason for, you'll see how terrible the whole thing really is.
          • I think you missed my point. Whether you are for or against the war, I think you could agree that war opponents whould feel that starting the draft would be the greatest thing possible that could happen to help turn people against the war. Thus the Republicans doing it is a dream situation for their opponents. It is a fantasy where the enemy consciously does the worst thing possible for their cause and it WILL NOT HAPPEN. I think the Republicans would prefer to give up on Iraq, say it was a mistake, and eva
        • Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience. Cheney won't run, Schwartzenegger can't run, Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.

          Hillary also has the "pleasant" memories of the first Clinton term in her favor, and what "progressive" wouldn't vote for the first woman candidate for President? (conveniently forgetting all the others through the y
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • The beauty of it is that he won't need the conservative base to be voting for him, they will be to busy voting against Hillary to notice who they are voting for. She will not win, and in no small part to her abrasive and "cold" attitude. Carville will never be president for the same reason (and Dole lost big on this too).

              Don't mistake the conservative vote as being very cohesive. The Republicans are on the outs with a big chunk of conservatives, and they aren't likely to vote "against" someone, they're mo

            • The DNC completely missed this point when they put Kerry up instead of someone like Clark. The hard core left will vote for whoever they put up against Bush, because they want him out of office more than anything. It is the middle ground they forgot (and need). It is too easy to characterize (and not without good reason) Kerry as a way-left, nutball liberal, which turns off moderates. Actually, Clark was to the left of a great majority of the Primary candidates. All except for maybe Kusnich. Hell, even
          • I think you way overestimate how many "progressive" Democrat voters there are. There is a huge block that would be turned off by Hillary running, much much larger. An awful lot of it is sexist, of course, but that does not mean the reasons can be ignored.

            I actually suspect you know this. You are doing exactly what I am saying, you want a dream situation where the Republicans would win easily in 2008. This dream becomes so powerful that you start making up totally insane Democratic strategies so that you ca

            • You are doing exactly what I am saying, you want a dream situation where the Republicans would win easily in 2008. This dream becomes so powerful that you start making up totally insane Democratic strategies so that you can believe it will happen.

              You mistake apprehension for approval! :-)

              No, I don't want Hillary to win in 2008, I just don't see anything standing in her way, and that troubles me. I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and for the most part the Republican Party has been friendlier to my "ilk" than

      • Ha! Hillary stands no chance. I feel pretty comfortable saying the entire Republican electorate would be against her, and I seriously doubt she could get the Democrats to unanimously back her either. She's too harsh and not very likable...kinda reminds me of Teresa Heinz, actually.

        --trb
    • Got to say I agree very much with your second point. A lot of bad shit is going to happen over the next four years, regardless of who's in office. That said, I'd rather have the person I want taking care of problems than the person who has gone in the opposite direction of what I wanted almost every single time.
    • But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.

      Which is why we need Bush in office. If you, a sensible American, is worried Bush might launch a few tactical nuclear warheads to make his point, how much sleep do you think Kim Jong Il and the mullahs of Iran are getting?

      It's like Reagan. After more than one peace talk, the Russians came away thinking the end of the world was imminent, that all hope was lost for peace, and that the only way out was to surrender. You talk
      • A bit colorful, but you are probably correct. It's not enough to have the saber. You have to rattle it once in a while to have any effect though.

        • The flip side, of course, is that an animal backed into a corner, with nowhere to run, will generally lash out.

          Or, put another way, it works great until your bluff is called. The Soviets, at least, didn't want to die. Rattling your sabre at somebody who honestly believes that if they die trying to kill you, they will be assured a place in Paradise tends to not quite have the effect you're hoping for.

  • My opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:06AM (#10447899)
    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.
    • What about my post was a troll? I give my honest opinion on the draft, albeit not a well-written novel, and get modded as a troll.

      How about instead of going through threads you are uninterested in and modding people down, you leave them alone so someone else can give their input on the subject?

      Forgive me for contributing to the forums. I'll be sure to refrain in the future.

      • No, it isn't fair.

        But neither is this [slashdot.org], this [slashdot.org], or this [slashdot.org].

        All I can say is welcome to the politics section of Slashdot. Be prepared to burn some karma and have your posts modded into oblivion by mods who don't agree.

        Consider yourself lucky, though. At least your views are liberal, which explains why this is only the first time it's happened to you. Us moderates-conservatives/conservatives have almost completely given up the fight here on slashdot.

        -Grym

    • 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.
      • Yeah, the only way I could fully support it would be to do away with any and all college or income excemptions.

        I would assume this would be done since most kids go on to college nowadays. I could see that number rise to nearly 100% if they could dodge the draft by going back to school, this being because it is very easy for anyone to finance a college education if they want it.

        Even if we just drafted the bottom of society, the outcry would be so outrageous that our government would have no choice but to b

    • Re:My opinion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @06:25AM (#10448995) Homepage
      get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.

      I'll bite, what channel are YOU watching? I watch a lot of FoxNews, which many on this site would argue is the equivalent of an RNC talking head, and nobody is talking about how great this war is. The most common questions asked revolve around "Is this war actually winnable?" and "Is the situation worsening?", and neither of them are rhetorical in either direction.

      I flip to CNN and MSNBC on occasion as well, and those channels are both more pessimistic about the outcome. So unless you live in a remote, Republican controlled section of Texas, wtf?

      --trb

    • Re:My opinion (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @07:12AM (#10449152) Homepage Journal
      > chickenhawks

      If I can't support a war without having served in the military, then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times.

    • Re:My opinion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @07:50AM (#10449387) Homepage
      Unless you're going to have a 6 year draft, with extensions, you're never going to get the kind of longevity needed to maintain a military that takes this few casualties during operations. The reason the Pentagon is opposed to a draft (and they are, viscerally) is that it's going to add to their troop losses by multiple factors of ten. If you think you can't make a political point without getting a lot of people killed, something's wrong with you.

  • Will MTV still fearmonger like before? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aggiefalcon01 ( 730238 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:26AM (#10447983)
    One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft [rockthevote.com]. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.

  • That's funny, John Edwards just said... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:31AM (#10448012) Homepage Journal
    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?

    • Money, for one... (Score:2, Informative)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 )
      Yes, he did say that last night [mintruth.com]... in a sense:

      We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families -- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us.
      Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004 [mintruth.com]

      He also pointed out:

      They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congres

    • Huh? 40,000 is a pretty small increase. No draft needed for that.

  • Read the bill. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by flamingweasel ( 191775 )
    This bill was never meant to go to a vote, nor did its author expect it to go anywhere. If you RTFB, you'll see it's 2 years of mandatory service for all. This was a bill to make a political point, that all of these congressman would never send their sons and daughters off to die for this war, but would happily send all the poor folks who serve as our military off to die in the desert.

    This wasn't Machiavellian, it was a statement. Obviously lost on almost everyone.
    • ... but would happily send all the poor folks who serve as our military off to die in the desert.

      I was in the Army, and I never considered myself "poor" before, during, or after my service, and I know plenty of other current soldiers who do not feel poor now.

      Someone I know just volunteered to go back. I've thought about it, but a disability prevents me from being useful in my former position.

      Stop insulting us.

      • I was in the Army, and I never considered myself "poor" before, during, or after my service

        The goal of the bill was to ensure that we would never go to war unless it was absolutely, positively a good idea.

        And on average, the poor are more likely to join the army, partly out of need, and close friends and relatives of voting members of congress and the wealthy are the least likely to wind up on the front lines during a war.
      • I never considered myself "poor"

        What you think doesn't matter. "Poor" and "rich" have concrete definitions. Did you know that 20% of the population believes they are in the top 3% of income earners? Sad.

    • Re:Read the bill. (Score:3, Informative)

      by dbrutus ( 71639 )
      Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?

  • Not good even as a protest move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chitownIrish ( 769695 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:48AM (#10448065)
    Rangel introduced this measure under the idea that if a draft were reinstated, the chickenhawks would tone down their rhetoric when it might mean that their kids would be the ones fighting.

    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.

    • Thats the idea. There's already a gonna be a 17 year old getting his ass shot anyway. Why not yours? If there was the possibility that it might be yours getting shot perhaps you might be a little more reluctant to go to war. (I assume from your post you are rich enough that your son would never have to consider joining the military to for instance raise a child).
    • The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer). I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous. If he lost his life defending our country and whatever country he was fighting in, I'll be sad, but I'll know that he gave his life in se
      • I can't support your reasoning, but I certainly would like to believe I'd act the same way.

        I wouldn't want my son to die because a cult leader was cruicified 2000 years ago. On the other hand, I do believe that if you're unwilling to defend a society whose values you agree with, and whose values provide you with a fairly safe environment, you are unworthy of that society's support.

        In other words, if you're not willing to take up arms to protect your country, get out. I just wish the draft started at aro
  • The election is under a month away. can anyone spell forgone conclussion?

    Yes that was intentional.
  • Check out ideosphere [ideosphere.com].

    These are market based odds.

  • Rangel didn't even vote for it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @11:26AM (#10451592) Journal
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Close