The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:48 pm

I'm not sure if this has been asked somewhere else, I tried to look and didn't find one, maybe I just searched wrong. Anyways today in my government class my teacher brought up the issue about the draft possibly being reinstated due to our lack of soldiers in Iraq currently. This is not the first time I've heard of this but now that I have heard more details I have become curious. Is this really going to happen, is it a possibility? Or is this just rumors by someone who wants you to vote for Kerry? That is another rumor I have heard and can't seem to find anything to prove either side. I tried to look it up online and couldn't find anything current or reliable.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news ... 105146.php

This site is just an example of what I found. Like I said it is rather hard to tell if it's true or not and it is old (Jan. of this year).

My question is, do you think that in the next year or so that the draft will be instated or not? Do you think we need the draft or get the hell out of Iraq.

I'm hoping this is not true, because I am 18 and I would hate to have to fight in a war I don't believe in.

Edit: Yes that was a little strong to say, I understand why we are at war, some I might not totally agree with some I just don't agree with at all, and I didn't mean to upset anyone if I did.

Tzen · Post by **Tzen** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:00 pm

I figure it's just rumors or people being paranoid about the current situations. If anything we'll get out of Iraq instead of doing a draft.

Zell · Post by **Zell** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:02 pm

First of all the Idea of them re-instating the draft is rediculous.

Now don't get me wrong, 1000+ deahts are FAR too many. But until the number of deaths ranges in the tens of thousands range, there are plenty of active duty personel for right now. There is no NEED for a draft.

They isntituted the draft in Vietnam because of the huge loss of life and the need to replace soldiers.

There is no need.

And second:

Fighting in a war for all the wrogn reasons... I really don't want to start an argument here... you have the right to think and feel what you do...

and thats PART of what this fight is about... protecting your rights, and freedoms.

IF and that is a great big HUMONGOUS if they ever were institute the draft, would you try to dodge it? run to canada or mexico to avoid it? or would you stand and fight and defend your country?

I am above the draft age, but if push comes to shove, adn they need bodies... sign me up.

Cid · Post by **Cid** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:02 pm

I always figured the draft would come back in a snap as soon as a war breaks out, but I wouldn't place the whole thing in Iraq in that category. The draft is meant to get a fuckton of soldiers in a short span of time. That really isn't necessary.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:30 pm

I don't think I'd try to dodge the draft if it ever were to come to that. I honestly can't say for sure. I would hope not and probably regret it if I ever did.

And the reason I think my professor brought up was we are loosing too many people too fast and the majority of the troops now are just reserves. But I didn't think we had that many people there, or so few of the regulars there.

Also, anyone know if it's true they plan to be in Iraq for another 10 years? I'm sure it might be too early to tell now, especially being an election year.

Tyr · Post by **Tyr** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:21 am

Look at the source of your link, indymedia. The same people that called Pat Tillman a stupid jock baby killer that deserved to die for being a warmongering scum and so on. That alone makes me disregard the article in every sense.

Gungrave · Post by **Gungrave** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:36 am

I just don't understand why we're even fighting a war at all to begin with. How do you exactly fight a war on terror? If you're not for a war on terror, then it automatically makes you a terrorist. At first, Bush was saying he would take Bin Laden down, and when we didn't catch him he said that Bin laden was not the issue. Over the course of a few months all of the sudden Sadaam was the issue. Then we end up in Iraq doing god knows what and we're talking about re-instating the draft. Maybe I'm completely off base and I'm not trying to bash the whole system, it just seems a bit ludicrous at best.

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:57 am

I was kind of surprised the draft wasn't instated to begin with, honestly. We'll see, we'll see. I don't think it will be put in for Iraq, but if Bush wins again I'm sure we'll be fighting another war soon enough.

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:58 am

Zell wrote:IF and that is a great big HUMONGOUS if they ever were institute the draft, would you try to dodge it? run to canada or mexico to avoid it? or would you stand and fight and defend your country?

Wait, when did Iraq attack America?

Oh yeah, America attacked Iraq. My bad.

So I guess it would be more like running to fight and attack another country than standing and fighting to defend my country.

No, they won't institute the draft, and yes, I'd do everything in my power to avoid going to fight a war I don't believe in.

the 3rd child · Post by **the 3rd child** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:44 am

I seriously just don't fucking get why people think their would be a draft. It's not going to happen. This isn't vietnam, it's no where near the scale of vietnam. There is no need for a draft. To me, if anyone was going to reinstate the draft, it would be Kerry.

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:55 am

i made a bet with a friend of mine. if the draft somehow passes through every filter, hoop, and circus and becomes a reality, then i will pay him $100 and a month's supply of beer.

if said draft does in fact, come into play, i would very much like to see today's government try to enforoce it

the 3rd child · Post by **the 3rd child** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:57 am

Trevelyan wrote: if said draft does in fact, come into play, i would very much like to see today's government try to enforoce it :l

exactly. people would not let it happen. i dont wanna say things would be chaotic, but people would not fall into line and be okay with this.

Ole Kentucky Shark · Post by **Ole Kentucky Shark** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:26 am

Reiji · Post by **Reiji** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:26 am

More and more reservists are being activated. In the past three months, my mother, two cousins, and a good friend will be/have been sent to Iraq, Europe, and Afghanistan.

Why? Not because of troops dying, but to relieve those already fighting in Iraq, some of which have been kept past their expected terms.

If you haven't noticed (thanks to our selective media who likes to distract from the very reason why we're at war), there's a place called Afghanistan as well. Even though Bush is trying to sideline things with Iraq, the war on terrorism is a global war, and our troops are being spread out.

I wouldn't discount the draft as an impossibility because the amount of reservists being activated is increasing.

I am above the draft age, but if push comes to shove, adn they need bodies... sign me up.

They do need bodies, that's why they're activating the reserves. What's keeping you? Sign up today.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:51 am

Reiji wrote:What's keeping you?

Don't want to die? Don't want to fight a war you don't believe in? That's just for starters.

TheStrife · Post by **TheStrife** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:03 am

Patchingko wrote: No, they won't institute the draft, and yes, I'd do everything in my power to avoid going to fight a war I don't believe in.

x 9999

Reiji · Post by **Reiji** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:51 am

Dave wrote:
Reiji wrote:What's keeping you?
Don't want to die? Don't want to fight a war you don't believe in? That's just for starters.

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:47 pm

Reiji wrote:If you haven't noticed (thanks to our selective media who likes to distract from the very reason why we're at war), there's a place called Afghanistan as well. Even though Bush is trying to sideline things with Iraq, the war on terrorism is a global war, and our troops are being spread out.

I wouldn't discount the draft as an impossibility because the amount of reservists being activated is increasing.

sort of sounds like you're supporting the war.

Reiji · Post by **Reiji** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:33 pm

I said Bush is sidelining things with Iraq, in other words, distracting from the whole reason why we were drawn into battle.

I do support a war. I support the war on terrorism and the capture and persecution of Osama Bin Laden.

I don't support the Iraq war. In fact, several of us student protesters were jailed temporarily while talks were still going about whether to invade Iraq. Capturing Saddam Hussein is like a wife asking her husband to pick up some milk at the store and he comes back with a lawnmower.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:37 pm

Yeah I got it now.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:41 pm

Reiji wrote:If you haven't noticed (thanks to our selective media who likes to distract from the very reason why we're at war), there's a place called Afghanistan as well. Even though Bush is trying to sideline things with Iraq, the war on terrorism is a global war, and our troops are being spread out.

I don't even know where we stand on the Afghanistan conflict. Almost forgot about it since all I ever hear about is Iraq. Maybe a few notes about someone that worked for Osama Bin Laden, but that's it. I hadn't thought about that though when I made this, I would probably support that war more so than Iraq.

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:30 am

If it comes to it, it comes to it. I'm ready for civil disobedience if they ask for it. Bush is just enough of a fuckwad to instate the draft, but then Kerry might be too.

Zell · Post by **Zell** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:27 pm

Patchingko wrote:
Zell wrote:IF and that is a great big HUMONGOUS if they ever were institute the draft, would you try to dodge it? run to canada or mexico to avoid it? or would you stand and fight and defend your country?
Wait, when did Iraq attack America?

Oh yeah, America attacked Iraq. My bad.

So I guess it would be more like running to fight and attack another country than standing and fighting to defend my country.

No, they won't institute the draft, and yes, I'd do everything in my power to avoid going to fight a war I don't believe in.

Rek, thats my stance on if John Kerry Becomes President

if he becomes president, i am heading to canada!

I guess what my feelings are is, i would rather have a president willing to take the fight away from home than to have it fought here.

and yes i would go and fight if i was needed. Or i would stand in my front yard wiht my gun in hand to defend right here.

and at THIS stage of the game, i am opposed to being over there in a way.

I hate the fact that more lives are being lost after the "fighting" officially ended, because a bunch of cowards capture civilains and behead them and post it on the internet and hide their faces behind masks, or more lives are being lost because some guy packs a 1960's microbus full of a manure bomb or what have you to explode and kill 50 civilians and 1 or 2 soldiers.

I am sorry, maybe you all will hate me for saying this, But these people say this is gods will, that they are doing gods work, that this is a Holy War. I am sorry, but this whole attroccity offends me on TWO fronts...

Being rasied with a belief in God, there is NO SUCH THING as a HOLY WAR. and where the hell do these people get off saying "what we are doing is gods will." How can ANY civilized person see that as right. Gods will is not to go out and kill each other, and blow each other up! its fucking rediculous. Hell gods even wrote it down as one of his TOP TEN FUCKING LAWS!!! Though shalt not kill!

Holy Shit the more i am writing this the more i am getting pissed... i am going to stop.

Sorry if i offended anyone.

Maybe it is my age differance showing through. Maybe thats why i can see this so differant than most of you others here. Maybe thats what comes with age...

anyway, i am done with this topic, just because i don't like getting this worked up and pissed off You all know where i stand on the matter, so ia m not gonna argue this any more

I am not gonna change your minds, and don't want to. you can say what you feel jsut as easily as i can, and i am not gonna knock you for feeling that way. So anyway, continue the discussion, i will stop in to read, but i won't participate in it anymore

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:42 pm

Zell wrote:
Being rasied with a belief in God, there is NO SUCH THING as a HOLY WAR. and where the hell do these people get off saying "what we are doing is gods will." How can ANY civilized person see that as right. Gods will is not to go out and kill each other, and blow each other up! its fucking rediculous. Hell gods even wrote it down as one of his TOP TEN FUCKING LAWS!!! Though shalt not kill!

That's exactly right, which is why I'm against this war and all others. There is no such thing as a holy war. There is no such thing as a just war.

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:24 pm

Zell wrote:I guess what my feelings are is, i would rather have a president willing to take the fight away from home than to have it fought here.

I'll tell you why I'm opposed to this all-too-common mindset and try to do it without offending you.

The way I see America is as a great and thoughtful country. We are heroic, but we do not move to act without some major provocation. 9/11 was a major provocation and we knew that Bin Laden was the cause and that the Taliban was helping and hiding him. Therefore, I see ousting them as justified.

However, without ever finding Bin Laden or even committing the majority of our forces to finding him (mostly because that was a war of convenience to the President... and had little to do with finding Bin Laden and everything to do with replacing the Taliban) and fixing Afghanistan, our President decided arbitrarily to attack Iraq out of the blue.

Iraq did not do anything to us or any other country near it. It's true that it was run by a ruthless dictator, but so are numerous African, Middle Eastern and South Pacific nations that our country has not and will never do anything about, so this is not the real reason either. Saddam's regime also never had anything to do with Al Queda or Bin Laden, so all that crap Bush and buddies were spewing were lies as well.

In addition, no thought was put into the action whatsoever, which is blatently obvious by the huge number of American lives lost there combined with the fact that there doesn't appear to be an end to the violence there in sight. Keep in mind that under that horrible dictator Saddam, at least the country was at peace with itself. Which is better, and did the US have the right to destroy that balance?

If you can explain to me how Saddam Hussein was bringing a war to our doorstep, and how that justified a preemptive attack on his country that has resulted in only creating more death, terrorists and anarchy there, I will accept it. I certainly don't see any justification in the War on Iraq, though. Bush peddled that WMD bull so well that everyone bought it, but now that he's told us straight-up that they never existed, a lot of people seem perfectly content with the fact that we've created a hotbed for violence and terrorism there.

I don't ask that you change your vote, but I do ask that you don't use the "I want a decisive president" bullshit that Bush wants you to think is true. Bush and his advisors have never thought through something to its end, and all of the ones that did had to resign because Bush wouldn't listen to them anyhow.

How many American soldiers need to die in Iraq before people start realizing what a horrible idea it was? We're already well past 1000.

Zell · Post by **Zell** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:31 pm

ok i lied i am posting again

No worries about offending me Rek, asi siad, i am not out to try adn change anyone elses views, just to get what i wanted to say out there

and i am not voting for bush for the fact of the decisice president angle, just the fact that john kerry scares the hell out of me.

I am neither a republican nor a democrat. I base my votes on who i think is best, or who "says" stuff i agree with or what not.

For some reason, this election has neither, but Kerry just scares the hell out of me. He so far has said one thing, turned around and said the exact opposite, then turned around and said the opposite thing again so many times, i just don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth anymore.

I guess i feel that even if Bush is in the wrong, at least he has been forthcoming about it, and hasn't really changed anythign he said (TO the best of my knowledge, i don't follow everythign being said)

I just don't like the reversing and re-reversing of the things i HAVE heard Kerry said. he just scares me...

fenroar · Post by **fenroar** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:34 pm

I'd like to think the government's learned the mistake of Vietnam and drafting for an unpopular war to ever let a draft resolution pass right now..

.. then again, shortly before Iraq even happened they did enstate all kinds of weird anti-draft dodging clauses. You can't get saved by college or running to Canada anymore.

A draft right now would lead to ranks of unmotivated, bitter and widely unqualified troops running around in Iraq pulling off May Lay reenactments, which is really not what we need, heh.

It's worth noting that even though I'm a registered democrat, I am fill-in voting for my hamster for president. He sleeps in an igloo all day and chirps at me when he wants attention - therefore giving him a more hardline stance on the issues than Kerry does.

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:40 pm

Well see, that is the decisive angle, though. Your problem is that you believe that Kerry is a flip-flopper, which is one of the two major things Bush's campaign wants you to think (along with the contradictory "Kerry is the most liberal senator"... but how can you be the biggest flip-flopper and the most liberal senator?).

To me, it's an issue of the lesser of two evils once again.

Bush has already proven to me that he will make very unwise decisions and stick to them. He will not admit that he was wrong, even when it's blatantly obvious. It's like the WMD thing, instead of taking credit for being the one to sell that crap to the congress, he blamed George Tenant and the CIA and skirted his own responsibility.

As for Kerry, he's not proven much besides that he's not Bush. His campaign is weak as hell and if it weren't for the fact that Bush is so horribly deplorable to a large portion of the American public, he'd be getting blown out of the water right now. When Bush calls him a flip-flopper, he actually responds when he should just say Bush is ignorant, which is just idioitic because it makes people like you, and you're not at all alone, actually believe it.

As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind in light of a mistake, but there is something very wrong with knowing you've made a mistake but sticking to it for consistency's sake, and that's one of the major reasons Bush won't be getting my independant vote.

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:18 pm

To me, it's an issue of the lesser of two evils once again.

This is the worst part about things, and it's been this way the last two years. Do you see any canditate for the Presidency in the next two elections that could stop this trend?

TO · Post by TO » Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:27 pm

j0hn Ayanami wrote:
To me, it's an issue of the lesser of two evils once again.
This is the worst part about things, and it's been this way the last two years. Do you see any canditate for the Presidency in the next two elections that could stop this trend?

John McCain

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:47 pm

Pretty much.

I voted for Gen. Clark in the primaries, and I don't think he would have been "lesser of two evils," but he's also not retardedly left-wing, which is apparently what you need to be to become the Democratic nominee (and vice-versa for the Republicans, which is why unfortunately McCain doesn't have much of a chance).

Someone who would have a chance, if he were born in the US... the Governator. He's doing a hell of a job in California, honestly.

TO · Post by TO » Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:57 pm

Patchingko wrote:Pretty much.

I voted for Gen. Clark in the primaries, and I don't think he would have been "lesser of two evils," but he's also not retardedly left-wing, which is apparently what you need to be to become the Democratic nominee (and vice-versa for the Republicans, which is why unfortunately McCain doesn't have much of a chance).

Someone who would have a chance, if he were born in the US... the Governator. He's doing a hell of a job in California, honestly.

dude if arnold was able to run for president and did, i would totally vote for him.

i mean, how hilarious would it be if what they said in demolition man actually came true? not to mention, could you imagine what his campaign posters would be?

VOTE ARNOLD FOR PRESIDENT

Zell · Post by **Zell** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 8:07 pm

I'd vote for Arnold in a second!

TheStrife · Post by **TheStrife** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 8:11 pm

I wish.

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 8:53 pm

TO wrote:
j0hn Ayanami wrote:
To me, it's an issue of the lesser of two evils once again.
This is the worst part about things, and it's been this way the last two years. Do you see any canditate for the Presidency in the next two elections that could stop this trend?
John McCain

The reason I was afraid to mention McCain and Clark is this - both of them are too different from their own parties. McCain's the only Republican ever, as far as I know, to get a rowdy applause during an interview with the Daily Show.

That's the saddest thing; two of the best candidates for the President; guys who are upstanding, likeable, smart descision makers with morals do not fit into the party system that is far too biased.

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:45 pm

Patchingko wrote:Pretty much.

I voted for Gen. Clark in the primaries, and I don't think he would have been "lesser of two evils," but he's also not retardedly left-wing, which is apparently what you need to be to become the Democratic nominee (and vice-versa for the Republicans, which is why unfortunately McCain doesn't have much of a chance).

Someone who would have a chance, if he were born in the US... the Governator. He's doing a hell of a job in California, honestly.

I'd agree if by retardedly left wing, you mean left wing in all the wrong ways, instead of too left wing.

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:11 am

Arnold/McCain '08

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:17 am

Ugh.....thank God if Bush wins, the country won't last to see that election.

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:27 am

Trevelyan wrote:Arnold/McCain '08

Screw that.

Arnold/Stallone '08

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:26 am

Taco Bell is the only restaurant left on earth!

WaWard · Post by **WaWard** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:49 pm

I'd become american just to vote for ahnuld. :>

Calbrena · Post by **Calbrena** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:14 pm

TO wrote:dude if arnold was able to run for president and did, i would totally vote for him.

I'm sure there's enough time to change the law so that Arnold can run for president in '08.
And then Gorvernator will rule the world. If the world still exist after Bush's (re-)election, that is.

WaWard · Post by **WaWard** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:17 pm

Calbrena wrote:
TO wrote:dude if arnold was able to run for president and did, i would totally vote for him.
I'm sure there's enough time to change the law so that Arnold can run for president in '08.
And then Gorvernator will rule the world. If the world still exist after Bush's (re-)election, that is.

John Titor says it won't, regardless of who's elected.

Calbrena · Post by **Calbrena** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:17 pm

Rofl, interesting read

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:24 pm

Ward wrote:
Calbrena wrote:
TO wrote:dude if arnold was able to run for president and did, i would totally vote for him.
I'm sure there's enough time to change the law so that Arnold can run for president in '08.
And then Gorvernator will rule the world. If the world still exist after Bush's (re-)election, that is.
John Titor says it won't, regardless of who's elected.

ROFL. Civil War next year, be there or be square!

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:36 pm

Hehe. I think this guy made his predictions just well enough to get people excited. A Civil War after the election touted as "the most important election ever" begins to sound likely.

WaWard · Post by **WaWard** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:43 pm

What predictions? He's from the future.

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:48 pm

Apparently only on his "worldline." He covers his bases well, as any would be prophet should.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:22 pm

Patchingko wrote:If you can explain to me how Saddam Hussein was bringing a war to our doorstep, and how that justified a preemptive attack on his country that has resulted in only creating more death, terrorists and anarchy there, I will accept it. I certainly don't see any justification in the War on Iraq, though. Bush peddled that WMD bull so well that everyone bought it, but now that he's told us straight-up that they never existed, a lot of people seem perfectly content with the fact that we've created a hotbed for violence and terrorism there.

If I recall, part of the reason we attacked Iraq besides the whole WMD thing, was he was supposedly helping Bin Laden. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I believe that was part of the reason they went there in the first place, then they said he had WMD later, and now we are still there for what some people seem to think is we want their oil. Wouldn't surprise me.

Arnold in '08?

I'd vote for him.

Brody · Post by **Brody** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:45 pm

Jesus, I just spent like 3 hours piling over this stuff. Wheres the time machine to take those 3 hours back?

Square Gamer

The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?

Re: The Draft - Will it be reinstated?