Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reinstituing the Draft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reinstituing the Draft

    Any idea what prompted this?

    http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings...003127636.html

    The Universal National Service Act of 2003
    Introduced by Representative Rangel and Senator Hollings

    The Rangel-Hollings legislation (H.R. 163 in the House and S.89 in the Senate) would re-institute a draft to compulsory military or alternative national service for men and women, aged 18 to 26, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States of America.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    So no one has heard about this?

    It seems to me instituting the draft/national service would be wholly unpopular?

    And I can't see the reason behind it.. are the armed forces having problems with recruitment?
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not a very popular idea with the Pentagon, either. They rather prefer volunteer based armed forces.
      I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

      Comment


      • #4
        They need no more "Chair à Canon" "Canon fodder"
        The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
        JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
        The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a move by several Democratic Senators who oppose the war. They feel that with a consript force the president would have a harder time using troops overseas.

          _Tim
          "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

          Comment


          • #6
            In France when there was a mix of professional and conscripts, the president can't send conscript without the parlamant agreement. So, he sent professionals that's all
            The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
            JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
            The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tim McBride
              This is a move by several Democratic Senators who oppose the war. They feel that with a consript force the president would have a harder time using troops overseas.

              _Tim
              Very correct. I first recalled this coming up shortly after President Bush delivered his Sept 12, 2002 Speech to the United Nations. I thought it was dead.

              I found the move deplorable to say the least. In most instances conscript Armies have a noticable decline in performance over total volunteer forces. These Senators were willing to compromise the National Security of the US to promote their own agenda, which in my view was misguided from the get-go. The Democratic Party were very disturbed by the international opposition to war with Iraq. And the proposal illustrates just how far they were willing to go to appease allies, who just might be wrong.

              Besides Democrats really didn't want war in any case, no matter the case.

              Conscription is a bad ideal. These forces often require a degree of support for the military action that rarely exists. They fight best only when there is a belief the nation they serve will perish without their effort. Anything below this results in a decline in combat effectiveness. Countries that have small population often require conspription to fulfill their defense requirements.
              Last edited by Deltapooh; 17 Apr 03, 16:44.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                Wow, I bet those Senators won't be too popular come election time :P.

                Has to be one of the silliest thing I've heard in a while.
                "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The best in this case, to avoid election problem is to become a nice dictator, exploit your people, in this case you can feel free to kill your oponents.

                  The big trouble is that some stupid cowboys and beefeaters want to remove you. You a mighty , brave and honnest tyran, yes they want to kill you illegaly. To drive you from your job you got so hardly and try to keep honnestly by oppressing with dignity and respect your brave people.

                  What the UN is doing

                  Der Wanderer
                  The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
                  JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
                  The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jlbetin
                    The best in this case, to avoid election problem is to become a nice dictator, exploit your people, in this case you can feel free to kill your oponents.

                    The big trouble is that some stupid cowboys and beefeaters want to remove you. You a mighty , brave and honnest tyran, yes they want to kill you illegaly. To drive you from your job you got so hardly and try to keep honnestly by oppressing with dignity and respect your brave people.

                    What the UN is doing

                    Der Wanderer
                    For all the determination to impose international law, I find it amazing that Chirac and others called the Coalition Invasion of Iraq illegal. Granted the UN didn't give clear approval. Yet, there was no Resolution passed that said the war was illegal under international law. The UN never cancelled Resolutions authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7.

                    I might be wrong there, but the classification of the war being illegal is a personal, not binding, decision imposed by some governments. It's of course, you and whoever else does have retain the right to voice your opinion. I just thought it strange when Chirac and others made that claim.
                    Last edited by Deltapooh; 18 Apr 03, 08:56.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh


                      For all the determination to impose international law, I find it amazing that Chirac and others called the Coalition Invasion of Iraq illegal. Granted the UN didn't give clear approval. Yet, there was no Resolution passed that said the war was illegal under international law. The UN never cancelled Resolutions authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7.

                      I might be wrong there, but the classification of the war being illegal is a personal, not binding, decision imposed by some governments. It's of course, you and whoever else does have retain the right to voice your opinion. I just thought it strange when Chirac and others made that claim.
                      It was illegal according to the UN charter, which can be viewed as an international treaty for the purposes here.

                      What resolution authorizing the use of force? If we are going back to the Gulf War #1 times then they do not apply - force was authorized to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

                      If we are talking about resolution 1442, it did not explicitly authorize force - only "serious consequences" which was negotiated specifically from the original wording which, according to reports, authorized force until France, Russia and China (most likely Syria too) said they would not accept it unless the authorization of force was removed.

                      I have seen many people additionally suggest that because Hussein never lived up to his treaty obligations (technically un-true due to the lack of time limit of 687 and in any event thus far unprovable - but let's take it for fact) under the resolution the cease-fire was annulled - but the UN does not work like that. Another resolution explicitly authorizing force would have been necessary as the last one covered the territorical integrity of Kuwait specifically.

                      Kofi Annan has also said the US is/was violating the UN charter.

                      The charter says only in self-defence (I think most people can agree the US has not proven self-defence) or with explicit UNSC approval is a war "legal".

                      Regardless, the UN has long been irrelevant to the legality of the Iraq question which has been evidenced by the events transpired.
                      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh


                        For all the determination to impose international law, I find it amazing that Chirac and others called the Coalition Invasion of Iraq illegal. Granted the UN didn't give clear approval. Yet, there was no Resolution passed that said the war was illegal under international law. The UN never cancelled Resolutions authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7.
                        Yeah, sure, as if the USA and UK wouldn't veto such a resolution
                        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                        Henry Alfred Kissinger

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MikeJ

                          I have seen many people additionally suggest that because Hussein never lived up to his treaty obligations (technically un-true due to the lack of time limit of 687 and in any event thus far unprovable - but let's take it for fact) under the resolution the cease-fire was annulled - but the UN does not work like that. Another resolution explicitly authorizing force would have been necessary as the last one covered the territorical integrity of Kuwait specifically.
                          Whether the UN works that way or not is really irrelevant as the only two signatories to the original ceasefire in 1991 were the US and Iraq. The UN only approved of the ceasefire later.

                          The argument can be made that since the UN did not approve the Coalition actions in Iraq, then the Coalition is able to revert to the original ceasefire in 1991, which was indeed violated by Iraq.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MikeJ


                            It was illegal according to the UN charter, which can be viewed as an international treaty for the purposes here.

                            What resolution authorizing the use of force? If we are going back to the Gulf War #1 times then they do not apply - force was authorized to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

                            If we are talking about resolution 1442, it did not explicitly authorize force - only "serious consequences" which was negotiated specifically from the original wording which, according to reports, authorized force until France, Russia and China (most likely Syria too) said they would not accept it unless the authorization of force was removed.

                            I have seen many people additionally suggest that because Hussein never lived up to his treaty obligations (technically un-true due to the lack of time limit of 687 and in any event thus far unprovable - but let's take it for fact) under the resolution the cease-fire was annulled - but the UN does not work like that. Another resolution explicitly authorizing force would have been necessary as the last one covered the territorical integrity of Kuwait specifically.

                            Kofi Annan has also said the US is/was violating the UN charter.

                            The charter says only in self-defence (I think most people can agree the US has not proven self-defence) or with explicit UNSC approval is a war "legal".

                            Regardless, the UN has long been irrelevant to the legality of the Iraq question which has been evidenced by the events transpired.
                            There was no time limit on UNSC RESO 687. Furthermore, 687 was adopted under 678. The UN recognized, and validated all relevant Resolutions by recalling them in 1441.

                            I never figured out why countries didn't revise or ammend those Resolutions to ensure they could not be used later on. It was why Bush never took them seriously.

                            I agree that UNSC 678 and 687 should not be relevant. However, the simple fact is the UN chose to validate them without placing a timeline or condition. 687 had to be relevant because otherwise the inspectors would have no justification to be in Iraq. 687 also didn't prevent the use of force no where in it's statement.

                            One could argue 687 doesn't justify military action since it was not clear what consequences would be brought for non-compliance.

                            Chirac was unjustified in calling the military action illegal, as though it was something concluded by the UN. It was not, there was no resolution saying the US could not act on 678 or 687.

                            And Yes Kraut, you are correct, the US and UK would have vetoed any attempt to get such a resolution passed.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's a silly initiative that is even made worse because it's based upon a false premise. Charlie Rangel believes we are more prone to war because we don't care about the casualties that would ensue because they'll likely come from the downtrodden who populate the military ranks. Specifically, in his case, black Americans.

                              It's false because any reading of contemporary history would suggest that if anything our military and political establishment are overly concerned about casualties. And secondly, and more importantly specific to Rangel, while blacks make up 12% of the population and 20% of the military, demonstrating a disproportionality, the actual percentage of black combat troops is only 3% of the military. Poor black Americans who enter the military tend to see it as an opportunity to receive important trade skills and therefore opt for support roles, which can be dangerous as we've seen but are less so than combat roles.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X