Gotcha!
Bush Has Ordered A Draft!!!!
- Thread starter JOPRIMO
- Start date
Gotcha!
Thats not funny I have a 17 yr old son!
I agree - not funny at all. My heart sank when I saw that topic heading. My son is sixteen.Oh come on guys lighten up a bit... My apologies if I offended in any way. Are you really that concerned about a draft?
The following is an exerpt from USMILITARY.ABOUT.COM...
First and foremost, one must understand that the President does not have the authority to re-institute the draft.<SCRIPT>zSB(3,3);if(!z336){var zIsb=gEI("adsb");if(zIsb){zIsb.style.display="inline";zIsb.style.height="0px";zIsb.style.width="0px";}var zIss=gEI("adss");if(zIss){zIss.style.display="inline";zIss.style.height="0px";zIss.style.width="0px";}}</SCRIPT> In order for a draft to be implemented, Congress would have to pass a specific law to authorize it.
These are the only two "draft" legislation bills which are currently active, Senate Bill 89 and House Resolution 163. First and foremost, please note that both bills were authored and introduced by Democrats, not Republicans. Senator Hollings and Mr. Rangel introduced the legislation over a year ago (January 2003), as a means of protest against a potential invasion of Iraq. Congress immediately stuck them "in committee" to die (that's what Congress does with bills that have absolutely no chance of passing). The two bills have languished there, ever since, with absolutely no action being taken.
Both bills would require every single male and female between the ages of 18 (not 16) and 26 to serve two years in the military (or community service).
Added Note: To help stop the on-going rumors about a draft, the House of Representatives pulled HR 163 out of committee (where it had been languishing untouched for over a year), and subjected it to a full floor vote on October 5, 2004. The bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 402 to 2 (that means it's forever dead, folks). Interestingly, even the congressman who introduced the legislation, voted against it.
There are no other draft-related bills currently pending. None. Zero, Nada, Zippo. The Bush Administration has stated over and over and over again that they have no plans to re-institute a draft, that they don't think a draft is necessary, and they don't believe a draft would even be effective with the type of military we have today. Ladies and gentlemen, they couldn't have made their views any clearer. The current administration is against a draft. They have said so, publicly, and loudly, at least 100 times. It's that simple. (For just one example, see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/nodraft.htm).
The following is an exerpt from USMILITARY.ABOUT.COM...
First and foremost, one must understand that the President does not have the authority to re-institute the draft.<SCRIPT>zSB(3,3);if(!z336){var zIsb=gEI("adsb");if(zIsb){zIsb.style.display="inline";zIsb.style.height="0px";zIsb.style.width="0px";}var zIss=gEI("adss");if(zIss){zIss.style.display="inline";zIss.style.height="0px";zIss.style.width="0px";}}</SCRIPT> In order for a draft to be implemented, Congress would have to pass a specific law to authorize it.
These are the only two "draft" legislation bills which are currently active, Senate Bill 89 and House Resolution 163. First and foremost, please note that both bills were authored and introduced by Democrats, not Republicans. Senator Hollings and Mr. Rangel introduced the legislation over a year ago (January 2003), as a means of protest against a potential invasion of Iraq. Congress immediately stuck them "in committee" to die (that's what Congress does with bills that have absolutely no chance of passing). The two bills have languished there, ever since, with absolutely no action being taken.
Both bills would require every single male and female between the ages of 18 (not 16) and 26 to serve two years in the military (or community service).
Added Note: To help stop the on-going rumors about a draft, the House of Representatives pulled HR 163 out of committee (where it had been languishing untouched for over a year), and subjected it to a full floor vote on October 5, 2004. The bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 402 to 2 (that means it's forever dead, folks). Interestingly, even the congressman who introduced the legislation, voted against it.
There are no other draft-related bills currently pending. None. Zero, Nada, Zippo. The Bush Administration has stated over and over and over again that they have no plans to re-institute a draft, that they don't think a draft is necessary, and they don't believe a draft would even be effective with the type of military we have today. Ladies and gentlemen, they couldn't have made their views any clearer. The current administration is against a draft. They have said so, publicly, and loudly, at least 100 times. It's that simple. (For just one example, see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/nodraft.htm).
It's funny 
I thought it was funny too. Lighten up folks. 
I thought it was funny, but I knew about this joke ahead of time.
On a similar note though, while there may be no draft, here is an interesting story that kind of side steps the draft. A local guy here in Hawaii served and completed his full requirement in the Army. He even served in the first Golf war. After his 8 year time requirement he left the Army and returned to civilian life as many do. This was a few years ago. This year he received a deployment letter from the Army saying they were calling him back up to active duty status (Note, he is not in the Army nor even on any sort of Reseve since he was discharged). Obviously he was shocked and to make a long stroy short he had to hire his own attornies to fight the Army on this issue. The Army just the other day revolked their letter calling him up for active duty and he can now go on with his life. Anyone else know of anythig similar or was this just a simple mistake? If it was just a mistake I'm not sure why the Army had to be taken to court on the matter before they recanted. Does the Army have a rule that states once in you can be called back at anytime even after you are discharged?
On a similar note though, while there may be no draft, here is an interesting story that kind of side steps the draft. A local guy here in Hawaii served and completed his full requirement in the Army. He even served in the first Golf war. After his 8 year time requirement he left the Army and returned to civilian life as many do. This was a few years ago. This year he received a deployment letter from the Army saying they were calling him back up to active duty status (Note, he is not in the Army nor even on any sort of Reseve since he was discharged). Obviously he was shocked and to make a long stroy short he had to hire his own attornies to fight the Army on this issue. The Army just the other day revolked their letter calling him up for active duty and he can now go on with his life. Anyone else know of anythig similar or was this just a simple mistake? If it was just a mistake I'm not sure why the Army had to be taken to court on the matter before they recanted. Does the Army have a rule that states once in you can be called back at anytime even after you are discharged?
I'm going to go order a few drafts myself in couple minutes
I don't know about the legality of calling up people that aren't even in the reserves anymore, but this general concept was what the Democrats were referring to as the "back-door draft" during the election campaign. Extending service time indefinitely for actives and reserves is a way to boost the number of troops, without instituting an actual draft.ChrisK said:
That's all nice and good for those of us (or our kids) that aren't in the armed forces, and won't be unless they volunteer, but, from what I've read, this is not going over so well with some people who thought they were done with their commitment, only to be pulled back in, and sent to war.
ADNOH said:
Hehehe, you know what I meant
Similar threads
- Sticky
