The Draft of June 2005. Is it really coming?

Did Clinton make a pass at you Zana?

LOL

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree, just so long as we can do it with civility.

And the Clinton for VP thing was on the radio Friday (not the news, though.)

Sure, the curernt administration has done some things I don't like. But my POV is that I'm not worried that the current administration is going to abuse the recent acts and orders involving national security. I AM, however, concerned about what life will be like if those are still in effect when certain other people take over the administration.

I really could care less who Clinton was screwing (or not quite, as the case may be.) But I do take issue with the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who has the highest possible security clearance in the U.S. Government, getting less than a slap on the wrist for things that would have gotten my security clearance rescinded, and earned me 15+ years at hard labor in Leavenworth.

This, the Clinton drawdown, and other political issues that filtered down from the Clinton administration are the main reasons that I'm not still in the military.

I am truely non-partisan, which I believe makes me more objective than anyone who's party-affiliated. Although I will admit that on most issues I lean towards conservatism.

But even though I disagree with some recent politics, and I'm not affiliated, I still believe that the Democratic party is more dangerous than the Republican party, and I'm realistic enough to understand that anyone not in one of these parties isn't going to be elected to the Presidency any time soon.

And let's face it. When we elect a president, or a senator, or a representative in the federal government, we're electing their party affiliations and their lobbyists, not the person themselves.

Although I firmly believe an all-volunteer military is significantly more effective than a drafted military (just look at the Vietnam-era military), and I don't particularly care for the idea of a draft, I think it could have some positive side-effects. A lot more people would have a lot more respect for their rights and freedoms if they had to live for a few years without some of them. (For those who don't know, our servicemembers voluntarily give up or restrict some of their civil rights while they're risking their lives to defend yours.)

You do realize that we are one of the very few countries in the world that don't REQUIRE every able-bodied male to serve a "conscripted" term in the military, right? And this is just one of the freedoms that your volunteer military serves to defend.

LOL

Please, please, don't make me laugh.

Have any of you actually looked at the sponsors of the bill???

THEY ARE THE DEMOCRATS. The administration has said time and time again they don't want a draft, Rumsfield prefers a volunteer military because the quality of soldier is much better.

JV

If they need a draft they should draft thoes.....

1) Unemployed - Hell there sitting on there asses.
2) People who have been on welfare in the past, May it be there parents were on it when they were younger.
3) Southern people, Send thoes texas people over, there used to the heat!

As for me I served my tearms, I'm a free man! Can't draft this bitches *flips off the government*

I didn't realize until after I posted that that the bills were sponsored by democrats but yes I did pick up on that. So yeah, my first statement is a little hasty, I'll admit .

So maybe I wouldn't be trying to get people to vote democrat, maybe I'd be trying to get people to vote period and, while I was at it, protesting a draft. But I start with several assumptions -- that the military should be volunteer only because, as many have said, it makes for a much more effective fighting force. Secondly, because I am firmly against many of the policies and shannanigans that got us into Iraq in the first place and the more that comes out -- Abu Gahrib, Akmed Challaby (ie) (sp?), the faked WMD evidence, the uprising as well as the fact that I am and have always been a pacificist leaning person who believes in diplomacy . . .

I have to say I'm against this particular set of war-time policies and I don't want to watch the 20 year old kids I work with every day sent to Iraq to fight and die for something I think is wacked at the start. OK I didn't mean to make this a republican vs. democrat thing or even a liberal vs. conservative thing. I didn't even mean to get this into my perspective or personal leanings because its clearly a threadjack!

But I have two final things to say: At least Clinton graduated with a respectable GPA from Oxford . . .I guess I just respect that kind of thing more than vampant patriotism (not that anyone here is vampant, God forbid).

And Secondly, Darwin honey, don't even start trying to throw us good gentle southern folk into the maw just because we are used to one particular type of heat. Cause darlin', let me tell you, what we like is a wet heat. Nice and thick and sticky. What they got over there is a dry heat and that's just not the same thing at all! And besides, it just wouldn't be American, after all. Aren't we all equal, no matter our race, class, creed or climate affinities?

Zana

mmm, support someone who is faithful to his wife, starts wars, destroys our contry's standing in the world, subverts our rights, turns back progress.......

...or someone who can't keep is wang in his pants.

mmm....decisions, decisions.

Oh I agree Hank .

Z

if there ever really is a draft, the moment i am notified about it, i will grab the nearest gun, load it, and shoot myself in the foot to claim disabilites. better i shoot myself in the foot then some pissed off guy aiming for my head. sides, we've got no buisness being there.


say, weren't we supposed to be looking for bin laden ANYWAY?

Like I said before, I don't care who he screws.

I do care that the man is the very definition of a security risk. And he is single-handedly responsible for the inability of our intelligence agencies to collect intelligence.

And if there is a draft, he'll be responsible for that, too. He is, after all, the one that chopped military manpower in half, and forced a lot of senior, experienced personnel OUT of the military, that would still be there NOW had they been allowed.

Uhm.. has anyone been able to confirm this information? Im deeply concerned about it actually being true.

At this point, it's speculation, Einsman, but I honestly don't see how they wouldn't eventually reinstate the draft. Whether it's 8 months, a year from now, or 3 years, it's just a matter of time. I don't think that combat troops are necessarily who they'd be focusing on this time, though. I would expect to see more doctors and engineers drafted than the typical 20-year-old kids.

One thing is for certain -- regardless of whatever plans exist now, when the draft is reinstated, it will happen very quickly, as public opinion is not likely to take it well at all.

I can't give you a number on the odds, but consider this: what is the likelihood of another large-scale terrorist attack on US soil? Yes, yes, 100%, but what are the odds of it happening in the next 5 months? (Probably 100% again, unfortunately...) Anyway, the point is, remember what happened to popular opinion the last time.

Edit: Fixed bad copy and pasting.

Women have been calling for equality for more than thirty years and now you don't want it?

Fuck you too, buddy!

----

Have to agree about the equality for women thing though. Nice to see they're actually giving women what they want with this thing.

I hate the idea of a draft, especially since I'd probably be one drafted, and personally blame the military for the fucked up state my family is in right now. The idea of serving in Iraq for a cause I believe strongly against scares me.

As for those of you who aren't sure this is true:

The military population has been strained for several years now. We have troops stationed in dozens of countries across the globe. This Iraq thing has been the proverbial straw. They're now implimenting "Stop-loss", which is basically a forced draft of people already in the military. Anyone in a unit headed to Iraq (or Afganistan) -can not- leave the military, even if their period of voluntary service is up. Meaning people who signed up for three year tours are being forced to stay half a year, a year, or longer, unwillingly, in a hostile combat environment, leaving their families to wonder if they'll ever see them again.

They're planning on moving a large chunk of troops stationed in Korea (I think something like half of the entire force there) out to other areas of the world by next year. That's less than a year away.

That's how desperate they are for people. A draft is just the next step.

David, I dunno if that comment was directed to me regarding equal rights for women or the person I was answering, but if at me, then I'll just say that my view on it is that I'm grateful for those women who fought for those rights for the women who wanted them, I personally wasn't part of that fight, i think i was ummm maybe 9 or 10 then lol buuuut. I am very much into chivalrous men Either way I'm way past the draft age but I do feel for those who are pacifists or against war to be forced into one. If I was a volunteer, I doubt I'd want someone fighting next to me who didn't want to be there because they may freeze up when I need them to have my back.

In the end, I was just answering the young lady's question. It's unfortunate for 'anyone' to be drafted if you want to get right down to my point. That is my opinon. I have an 18 year old son who I am just as concerned about.

First off. Clinton can't be Kerrys running mate because he has already been President for two terms and can't be VP because then he would be in a position to become President if something happens to Kerry.
Second. Air America Radio. The real/only Liberal media. Its not like other talk radio. Its actualy entertaining and the people who host the shows actualy have a sence of humor.

Come to Canada before it's too late

Does Brazil have an extradition treaty with the US? I don't think it does, so that would be a better place to go then Canada. Warmer too.

Well, the Senate HAS voted to add 20,000 new recruits to the US Army.

Actually, you're wrong. There's nothing preventing him from being VP any more than there is preventing him from running for congress, or the senate.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent it.

Actualy there is. I believe they were discussing it on Unfiltered on Air America Radio a few weeks ago and they found that technicaly he can't because he has been president for two terms already and he cant hold an office where he would be in line to become president agian.

and its only on like 15 stations and already starting to fail

Its true, i think he would not be able to replace the president?? or perhaps the 2 terms is you can only be elected to two terms, i'll have to read up on my hand dandy pocket constitution.

JV

Clinton could be VP, but in the event Kerry were to die, it goes to third in Line. Speaker of the House, right?

The relevant portion of the 22nd Amendment states:

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

Also relevant here is the 25th Amendment, which states, in part:

"Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

Also of potential importance is the 20th Amendment:

"Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them."

The end moral being... well, depends on whom you ask. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution doesn't speak directly to the possibility of there being a VP who is a former President. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly forbids it. Nothing explicitly allows it, either.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but on my reading, it seems that the Constitution is completely silent on the matter of a former president being the VP. On the matter of succession in the event of the incapacity of the elected president, there seems to be a bit of wiggle room: Congress may be able to argue that it should be able to choose the next president in such a circumstance.

In any case, without another constitutional amendment on the matter, we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court would get involved -- I guess that's sort of why it's there. Well, really sort of. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the ability to choose presidents, but then, that didn't stop it in 2000, did it?