Upsetting Draft E Mail ?

[Bella the Ball 360]

HAS ANYONE ELSE GOTTEN THIS E MAIL? WHAT DO YOU THINK? I contacted my state rep and he said that the bill was definately real but it is going no where. But still I am leary. Anyone else know anything about it. There are only two weeks left to this session of congress and if it is real I would hate to see it pushed though at the last minute.





Sent from the Internet (Details)



Hi,

I apologize if you have received this information already... It's so important, I didn't want you to miss this.

The Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally effects everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.

There is pending legislation in the house and senate (companion bills: S89
and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin
as early as spring, 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. The
administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the
public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed
immediately. Details and links follow.

This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and
includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been
made very difficult.

Actions:

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the
aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. . . And let your children
know - - it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this
website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you
to read. It is less than two pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action.

In addition, college will no longer be an
option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with
Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to
stay within its borders. This bill also includes the extension of military
service for all those that are currently active. If you go to the select
service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the
reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of
terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will affect our
undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft
board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an
unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of
congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog"
in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on terrorism) proves
accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system
budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15,
2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the
system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

Please see: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

to view the Selective Service System
annual performance plan, fiscal year 2004.

Please take the time to write your congressman
and let them know how you
feel about this legislation.


http://www.house.gov


http://www.senate.gov


Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't
telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers and
other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important
story.

www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp


http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp
entitled the Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common
defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United
States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes."

These active bills currently sit in the Committee on armed services. Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December, 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration, "which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30 point! plan which
implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people
entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more
equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a
shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end
of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic
year.

What to do??? Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and ask them to
oppose these bills

Just type "congress" into the aol search engine and input your zip code. A
list of your reps will pop up with a way to email them directly. We can't
just sit and pretend that by ignoring it, it will go away. We must voice our
concerns and create the world we want to live in for our children and
grandchildren.

Thanks in advance for your action.

 

[GoodFairies]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

 

[Missy1961]

Originally posted by GoodFairies
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

The link didn't work! Is it saying that it is bogus?

 

[GoodFairies]

Sorry. It's status on snopes.com is "Probably not" with this:

Opinions — from both those inside and outside the military — differ as to what the manpower requirements of the U.S. armed forces will be in the near future, and whether the services will be able to continue to meet those requirements under the current all-volunteer system. And certainly not everyone agrees that general conscription is the best solution to potential staffing shortfalls, for a variety of reasons:

While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost.

"The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

A fundamental problem with a draft today, experts say, is that the historic two-year period of conscription isn't enough time to get a return on the investment in training that modern soldiers require. "There's just too much equipment [draftees] could break," Pike said.

A related problem: the cost of feeding, clothing, training and paying a large influx of unskilled personnel would gobble up funds the military needs for other purposes.

"We're a personnel-based institution," Wong said. "If we have a lot more people walking in the door, it would suck up all of our resources."
Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005:

And even if the draft were reinstated tomorrow, it would take at least two years before it could produce additional soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the experts say.

"It will take 193 days from the time that we get started until the first person is presented to the Department of Defense," said Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service. It would then take a year and a half to two years to train the draftees and form them into new combat units, Krepinovich said.
Even if the draft started up again, it might be of a much more limited nature than in previous years, with only those who could fill specialized positions in certain fields (e.g., health care, linguistics, computer technology) being conscripted.

There is as yet no definitive answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will reinstitute a draft. Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly — another event of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks could prompt some rapid shifts in government policy and public opinion.

 

[Rock'n Robin]

You know I could quote snopes all I want, but my MIL is using this EMail as one of her primary reasons why I should vote for Kerry (she doesn't need a reason, but is actively trying to convert me). How can I vote for someone who would put her grandchildren in harm's way, she wants to know? I just try to ignore her but she keeps talking about this EMail. (sigh)
Robin M.

 

[julia & nicks mom]

Any real investigation of the bill should turn up the following information (my DH and I both used to work for a congressman so believe me - I know what I am talking about)

The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel and co-sponsored by the following:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004)

All of these congressman are liberal democrats and most of them members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The bill has been sitting in committee and will remain buried there (by the Republicans who control Congress)

The bill was introduced for two reasons - one to show objection to the war in Iraq - he felt that if a Congressman had a son in the army he might not have voted for the war and because he feels that there needs to be more diversity in the military

Here is a quote from Charles Rangel's press release when he introduced the bill

"The disproportionately high representation of the poor and minorities in the enlisted ranks is well documented. Minorities comprise 35 percent of the military and Blacks 20 percent, well above their proportion of the general population. They, along with poor and rural Whites do more than their fair share of service in our ground forces. Yet the value of our foot soldiers is demeaned by those who promote the unproven notion that high-tech warfare will bring a quick and easy victory in Iraq."

So in summary - DEMOCRATS introduced this bill - REPUBLICANS will keep it buried -

President Bush and the Pentagon have said there is NO PLAN to reinstate the draft -

John Kerry is being irresponsible by making statements in the press that President Bush might do so and

This e-mail is being used by Democrats to use a bill introduced by their representatives to scare people with half-truths.


Robin - it looks like now your MIL will have to vote Republican if you use her logic!!!!

 

[momof2inPA]

I thought the bill was not about instituting a draft but about removing the ability of college students, rich kids, and women to avoid the draft. If this is the case, I support the bill. We are all equal. We should be drafted equally, if a draft should ever take place.

If Bush is against a draft, why doesn't he come out and say that he will not re-instate the draft. Period. That would clear it all up. Or maybe, barring another significant attack on U.S. soil, he would not institute a draft.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

That is pretty much what the person working at my rep's office said. He kept saying it was intro duced by the democrats and I found it odd since my rep is a democrat. I think what he was trying to say was that since the republicans control the vote that it would be buried. He also told me that Rangle was doing it just to make a point..

However, thanks for the info guys I feel marginally better but I think I will still call Fat Teddy's office tomorrow and see what he is saying.

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
I thought the bill was not about instituting a draft but about removing the ability of college students, rich kids, and women to avoid the draft. If this is the case, I support the bill. We are all equal. We should be drafted equally, if a draft should ever take place.

The ability to avoid the draft by being in college has already been removed and thus rich kids won't have that ability anymore. As for women, no politician is ready to tackle that and it is probably the main reason the draft will never be used again. But....

If Bush is against a draft, why doesn't he come out and say that he will not re-instate the draft. Period. That would clear it all up. Or maybe, barring another significant attack on U.S. soil, he would not institute a draft.

Bush can't say he won't ever re-instate the draft period because he (unlike some folks) doesn't know what the future holds. His administration has said over and over that they will not re-institute the draft, yet rumors continue so you are wrong about it would clear it all up. Some folks just refuse to believe him