as stated in the article, canada is no longer an option

and I hope so too. though I don't believe i qualify as a chicken (if you were talkin about me )

i'm a pacifist. no difference in the eyes of some, but there is a big difference.

4/10/2004 11:12:32 AM

If the draft is instituted, I say the first draftees should be the ones who support Bush and this war.

Actually, we shouldn't need the draft if everyone who's so "gung-ho" about it dropped out of college or quit their job and enlisted.

Like many of the people who posted here; http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=85940

4/10/2004 11:13:09 AM

^^ joking about the canada thing, and no i wasn't talking about you, although I think you would suck in a wartime situation, no offense.

4/10/2004 11:24:10 AM

no shit! 'cause i wouldn't hurt a fly.

you would too, ghandi

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 11:54:13 AM

4/10/2004 11:56:45 AM

shut up marko

you warmonger

4/10/2004 11:59:07 AM

Quote :

"Kay_Yow: I'm not entirely sure of what the two have to do with each other, but my reason for supporting this idea is just to equalize the burden between the economic classes. It's like RFK said during the Vietnam draft, it's easy to support a war and vote for escalation when it's poor people out there dying for the cause. If that's socialism, then yeah, I guess so."

It's a very simple leap. The military is like any other government beurocracy, as it grows, it costs more money. We'd effectively grow the government and end up either raising our taxes or add to the government deficit to pay for it.

4/10/2004 12:09:20 PM

4/10/2004 12:10:27 PM

Quote :

"CarZin just to piss off all the libs on TWW. Feel free to respond with your support of the President and his actions. No debate needed. 2/5/2003 4:34:20 PM EaTtHiS edit post I think we should go to war. 2/5/2003 4:39:52 PM DamnStraight i think we should bomb the hell outta saddam..well thats just my opinion 2/5/2003 4:41:53 PM ssanche I think that those who don't support some sort of military action against Iraq should go there to live. 2/5/2003 4:46:42 PM EaTtHiS ^ good point 2/5/2003 4:47:04 PM ssanche ^YAY..finally SOMEONE agrees with me......I was begginning to think I was the only one...... Wooo Hooo......we should start a Pro-War protest in D.C. That would make NEWS 2/5/2003 4:48:45 PM bgmims I'm all about bombing sadaam. We need to end his terrible reign and free his people from his opression. This is what we must make that fucker look like once again, America: Sadaam Smath74 I support the war against Saddam. JeepinMatt nuke em! 2/5/2003 9:24:28 PM JeepinMatt nuke em twice!! 2/5/2003 9:24:54 PM JeepinMatt Heck, lets nuke em one more time just to make sure! After all, we are the most powerful country in this world. Anybody who comes within 10 percent of our military power needs to be eliminated.... 2/5/2003 9:25:42 PM JeepinMatt nuke em twice!! 2/5/2003 9:26:30 PM "

I want all those people to enlist. And JeepinMatt to enlist twice.

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2004 4:04:32 PM

im going marko up on this bitch

4/10/2004 4:54:04 PM

C'mon you fucking warmongers! Join the military NOW!

4/11/2004 8:20:13 PM

So would this also include women??

"Equal rights, but we don't wanna have to die."

4/11/2004 9:17:19 PM

YVAN EHT NIOJ

4/11/2004 9:21:26 PM

^ nice one

4/11/2004 10:14:34 PM

I'm no pacifist, but I can tell you that if I was drafted by Congress to go shoot Iraqis that have never once bothered me I wouldn't have any illusions about who the enemy was. An unlimited government at home which presumes itself to own me, even to the extent that it may dispose of my life as it sees fit, is a much greater threat than some ignorant muslim fucks halfway around the world.

Where in the Constitution is there anything close to authorization for a draft? As a matter of fact, I seem to recall an explicit ban on "involuntary servitude" Ah yes, here it is.

Quote :

"Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

There is no mention at all of military "necessity", imagine that.

Now here's the million dollar question. If the government can exceed the limits of its legal authority, even just a little (and this is more than just a little), how can it really be said to be limited at all?

Oh, and that "horse gas mask" looks like nothing more than an ordinary feeding bag.

4/12/2004 10:09:59 AM

^ Yeah, conscription is pretty clearly not t3h winz and yeah, it seems rather unconsitutional. But anyways, it's extremely unpopular, and t3h g0v knows better.

4/12/2004 10:25:34 AM

fuck the draft. if i get a draft card i'll tell bush to shove it up his ass

4/12/2004 11:25:17 AM

Quote :

"One year later, the government is quietly taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages, according to a published report. The Selective Service System has begun the process of creating the procedures and policies to conduct a targeted draft in case military officials ask Congress to authorize it and the lawmakers agree to such a request, according to the March 13 San Francisco Chronicle. Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said that planning for a possible draft of linguists and computer experts had begun last fall after Pentagon personnel officials said the military needed more people with skills in those areas, the newspaper reported. "Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam," Mr. Flahavan said. "But they thought that, if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft." "

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1356.shtml

4/13/2004 11:50:19 AM

i seriously dont think this will go through, first of all both of those bills are in commitee right now i really think they will just die there

4/13/2004 12:14:02 PM

i agree. I don't think it would actually become law.

the frightening thing is that they would even propose it

4/13/2004 12:37:57 PM

CANADA!!!!!!!!!!

4/13/2004 12:39:23 PM

For quite a while now most of the draft legislation has come from leftists who have no desire to see it passed; they're just making a statement.

The draft will not happen. Stop talking about it. Salisburyboy will give up on this thread eventually.

4/13/2004 12:40:29 PM

won't happen, and if it does, i won't go [/care] [/thread]

4/13/2004 12:49:47 PM

4/13/2004 2:31:21 PM

More talk of a draft:

source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft&printer=1

quote:

"Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force

Tue, April 20, 2004

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security
in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and
what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"
Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to
understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 12:46:33 PM

pwnt. He's a Republican.

4/21/2004 12:48:14 PM

Quote :

"I rarely send a mail to a large audience, but the possibility of mandatory drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26) . . ."

that'd be about the only way i'd be halfway okay with being drafted. i have no desire for military service. frankly, i'm too opinionated and individualistic to even fit into the military. but if they actually started drafting women too....then i might not complain quite so loudly

4/21/2004 1:47:40 PM

i'm pretty opinionated and individualistic, and i'm in the military.

and the draft is a shitty idea.

4/21/2004 2:48:35 PM

^hm...i guess i should say i'm opinionated and individualistic, have no qualms about voicing my opinions, and dislike blind obedience.

i'd be kicked out for insubordination really quick

4/21/2004 3:01:07 PM

Right after me.

4/21/2004 3:24:45 PM

well... if one good thing has come out of this thread Salisburyboy is starting to use sources that aren't found on geocities...

4/21/2004 4:36:41 PM

^^^i just kind of look at the military as a seperate entity. things have to be different in the military. i'd flip my lid if society on the whole was anything like the military.

4/21/2004 4:38:36 PM

yay an excuse to get out of college

4/21/2004 4:46:58 PM

^^ That's perfectly valid and I completely respect that. It's just that, and I'm sure you realize this, it's not for everyone.

4/21/2004 4:59:39 PM

does anyone know how the draft actually works? ie, what order the ages are called? I know its not a linear draft, starting with the 18 year olds and moving up the list. I read about the order back in 2001 but I havent seen anything since.

Nevermind, I answered my own question @ sss.gov.

Quote :

"A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted. "

[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/21/2004 5:12:35 PM

I would never ever, fight in the military under President Bush... You could not pay me enough. He'll have you in a war over shady reasons.

4/21/2004 5:18:23 PM

the bill clearly overlooks one major pitfall: i will be drafted.

4/21/2004 6:20:50 PM

[quote
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"
Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to
understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."]

Ok, well if he's so gung ho about this "bearing responsibility" then y doesn't he put on a uniform and go to Iraq himself. These guys don't give a damn, b/c they know they will never have to set foot near any war torn nation.

4/21/2004 7:56:38 PM

i stand my the theory that politicians should have to be on teh front line of every battle

4/21/2004 8:59:20 PM

exactly

4/21/2004 9:13:07 PM

Quote :

"timswar: well... if one good thing has come out of this thread Salisburyboy is starting to use sources that aren't found on geocities..."

Not that anything is wrong with geocities websites in general, but I very rarely refer to geocities
sites....probably only 1 out of every 200 sites I ever refer to in my posts are from geocities.

I find it amusing that you exhibit this bias against geocities websites and seem to think you
are discrediting me because I refer to one on rare occasions.


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 9:52:00 PM

oh, i have no problems with geocities... i know many people who have websites there and i used to have one myself...

but nobody tries to put out a serious political agenda on geocities, at least nobody reputable...

4/21/2004 9:57:14 PM

Quote :

"timswar: but nobody tries to put out a serious political agenda on geocities, at least nobody reputable"

Oh, is that a fact? NO ONE who is reputable discusses politics on a geocities website? I take
it that you have extensive knowledge of the reputation of EVERY person who discusses politics
on a geocities site? You must have read all the geocities websites, huh?

Amazing.


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 10:00:42 PM

Quote :

"Conscription The constitutions adopted during the Revolutionary War by at least nine of the States sanctioned compulsory military service.\1439\ Towards the end of the War of 1812, conscription of men for the army was proposed by James Monroe, then Secretary of War, but opposition developed and peace came before the bill could be enacted.\1440\ In 1863, a compulsory draft law was adopted and put into operation without being challenged in the federal courts.\1441\ Not so the Selective Service Act of 1917.\1442\ This measure was attacked on the grounds that it tended to deprive the States of the right to ``a well-regulated militia,'' that the only power of Congress to exact compulsory service was the power to provide for calling forth the militia for the three purposes specified in the Constitu [[Page 313]] tion, which did not comprehend service abroad, and finally that the compulsory draft imposed involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected all of these contentions. It held that the powers of the States with respect to the militia were exercised in subordination to the paramount power of the National Government to raise and support armies, and that the power of Congress to mobilize an army was distinct from its authority to provide for calling the militia and was not qualified or in any wise limited thereby.\1443\ \1439\Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 380 (1918); Cox v. Wood, 247 U.S. 3 (1918). \1440\Id., 245 U.S., 385. \1441\Id., 386-388. The measure was upheld by a state court. Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 238 (1863). \1442\Act of May 18, 1917, 40 Stat. 76. \1443\Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 381, 382 (1918). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before the United States entered the first World War, the Court had anticipated the objection that compulsory military service would violate the Thirteenth Amendment and had answered it in the following words: ``It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.''\1444\ Accordingly, in the Selective Draft Law Cases,\1445\ it dismissed the objection under that amendment as a contention that was ``refuted by its mere statement.''\1446\ \1444\Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 333 (1916). \1445\245 U.S. 366 (1918). \1446\Id., 390. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the Supreme Court has so far formally declined to pass on the question of the ``peacetime'' draft,\1447\ its opinions leave no doubt of the constitutional validity of the act. In United States v. O'Brien,\1448\ upholding a statute prohibiting the destruction of selective service registrants' certificate of registration, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Warren, thought ``[t]he power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is `beyond question.'''\1449\ In noting Congress' ``broad constitutional power'' to raise and regulate armies and navies,\1450\ the Court has specifically observed that the conscription act was passed ``pursuant to'' the grant of authority to Congress in clauses 12-14.\1451\ \1447\Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. Sec. 451-473. Actual conscription has been precluded as of July 1, 1973, P.L. 92-129, 85 Stat. 353, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 467(c), and registration was discontinued in 1975. Pres. Proc. No. 4360, 3 C.F.R. 462, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 453 note. Registration, but not conscription, was reactivated in the wake of the invasion of Afghanistan. P.L. 96-282, 94 Stat. 552 (1980). \1448\391 U.S. 367 (1968). \1449\Id., 377, quoting Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 756 (1948). \1450\Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498, 510 (1975). \1451\Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 59 (1981). See id., 64- 65. And see Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841 (1984) (upholding denial of federal financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act to young men who fail to register for the draft)."

The draft is not unconstitutional.

4/22/2004 8:43:47 AM

Regardless of what you think about the legal basis for a draft; it is a realistic possibility at the moment. Most Americans are fairly clueless about exactly how taxed our ground forces are at the moment. I'd bet most of you didn't realize, that if for some inconceivable reason, Canada or Mexico decided to invade the U.S, there would only be 1 army division in the entire country available to stop them. The point is simple. If the intensity of the actions in the last month do not alleviate, more units will be required to rotate back to Iraq. Leaving virtually no significant military presence on our own native soil. I don't encourage a draft, but it may very well become a necessity. Of course, I'm assuming that the sicking mentality(myself before my country) of certain people in this nation does not prevail. In which case we will have failed the people of Iraq and ourselves, due to cowardice.

4/22/2004 9:07:18 AM

Quote :

" billyboy Ok, well if he's so gung ho about this "bearing responsibility" then y doesn't he put on a uniform and go to Iraq himself. These guys don't give a damn, b/c they know they will never have to set foot near any war torn nation. "

That was Sen. Chuck Hagel, served as an infantry squad leader in Vietnam. He was awarded 2 purple hearts. Shouldn't you feel like a dumbass?

4/22/2004 9:20:07 AM

I'm not liking the idea of getting drafted because some idiot in Washington believes we should police the world. Take our guys out of every country and put them either in Iraq or Korea (since those are our "main" concerns right now.) Leave the other countries to fend for themselves.

4/22/2004 12:13:23 PM

The return of a draft was being seriously discussed on the major cable news channels last
night, including on msnbc and cnbc.

4/22/2004 12:38:37 PM

I sometimes think a draft or mandatory service would be a good idea for our nation's youth. I just don't see us stacking up w/ the generation of WWI or WWII sometimes those men/women were nothing short of great. Having mandatory military service might help unify our country and teach those who don't understand how to work for a common goal a little bit of discipline and team work.

4/22/2004 1:16:14 PM

[quote
That was Sen. Chuck Hagel, served as an infantry squad leader in Vietnam. He was awarded 2 purple hearts. Shouldn't you feel like a dumbass?]

Well, that's my fault, some have been in war, and yeah, I respect them for that. But there are others in DC that haven't fought in anything, that's what I meant by that statement about Congress.

4/22/2004 1:23:24 PM