The Selective Service Act

[Ragnarok]

You all have made some valid points. However, we are not a war with any countries, as far as we know there is no huge army threatening our homeland, so this draft is clearly not needed when we have 3 million volunteers ready to fight. And since you want to bring up the beginings of our country here is a excellent quote.


Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): [W]e have lost sight of first principles. This country was founded on the spirit of liberty, that what we give to our country, we give voluntarily. The Peace Corps voluntary service is voluntary. The draft is not in the spirit of American liberty... For most of American history, we did not have it, and then we blessed ourselves as different from the tyrannies of Europe that had it... We would have plenty of time to prepare and to reinstitute a draft if some other nation began arming to match us with supposed danger. There is no danger that justifies this departure from our traditions of liberty."


Congressman Jack Metcalf (R-WA): "The opposition to this amendment argues that the Selective Service is a visible symbol of national security, a symbol that we need to protect. Well, $23 million is an awfully expensive symbol. The Department of Defense has stated, and I quote, `Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization requirements.' I will repeat that. The Department of Defense: `Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization requirements.'"

Former Senator Robert Taft: "A compulsory draft ... is far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. The theory behind it leads directly to totalitarianism. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of individual liberty."

President Ronald Reagan: "[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral... a draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending."

I find the draft to very contradicting and it completely opposes what our country stands for.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You should be lucky you live here and the fact that we don't REQUIRE military service.

Don't get me wrong I am thankful... however you are ignoring the point I'm trying to make. The draft goes against and contradicts what our country stands for. We have a democratic government.. doesn't it bother you that this draft is a form despotism?? Many of those who arrived on our shores and built this great land of liberty were escaping despotism, the despotism of their native lands, which more than anything else was signified by the tyranny of conscription. The strength of our country is in its love of liberty and freedom. Our military today represents that love of liberty because they are volunteers.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
I find the draft to very contradicting and it completely opposes what our country stands for.

principles are all fine and well, but often you have to be pragmatic as well... you could easily make an argument that war itself is contradictory to what our country stands for (especially wars that the executive doesn't even have the cajones to bring before congress for a formal declaration )... many felt that way pre-ww1 and ww2... that said, we are in one now for all intents and purposes, whether one accepts it or not

a draft does not mean call up everyone from 18-24, it means everyone from 18-24 has a chance to be called up... which means your average young adult or parent will think a lot harder about where and when we should step in around the world

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
Don't get me wrong I am thankful... however you are ignoring the point I'm trying to make. The draft goes against and contradicts what our country stands for. We have a democratic government.. doesn't it bother you that this draft is a form despotism?? Many of those who arrived on our shores and built this great land of liberty were escaping despotism, the despotism of their native lands, which more than anything else was signified by the tyranny of conscription. The strength of our country is in its love of liberty and freedom. Our military today represents that love of liberty because they are volunteers.

There is no draft though - so i wonder what draft you are talking about? The possibilty of a draft? Because at this point in time that is all there is - a possibility. All wars have had the draft - from the Revolution (in one form) to Vietnam.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
principles are all fine and well, but often you have to be pragmatic as well... you could easily make an argument that war itself is contradictory to what our country stands for (especially wars that the executive doesn't even have the cajones to bring before congress for a formal declaration )... many felt that way pre-ww1 and ww2... that said, we are in one now for all intents and purposes, whether one accepts it or not

The US hasn't had a declared war since WWII. As for the War in Iraq - it was approved by Congress. The democrats may not like it - but Bush brought it before them - and they gave their okay for military action if the UN resolutions didn't work. There were TWO resolutions that were tried after the 17 previous.

[Ragnarok]

I know how the draft works

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is no draft though - so i wonder what draft you are talking about? The possibilty of a draft? Because at this point in time that is all there is - a possibility. All wars have had the draft - from the Revolution (in one form) to Vietnam.

I know there is no draft, I meant the possibility of reinstating the selective service act, which is a draft... next time I'll be more specific.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The US hasn't had a declared war since WWII. As for the War in Iraq - it was approved by Congress. The democrats may not like it - but Bush brought it before them - and they gave their okay for military action if the UN resolutions didn't work. There were TWO resolutions that were tried after the 17 previous.

then why not go back for a formal declaration?

[Hemel]

bj:
a draft does not mean call up everyone from 18-24, it means everyone from 18-24 has a chance to be called up

This means females as well as males?

which means your average young adult or parent will think a lot harder about where and when we should step in around the world

or even IF! It's an interesting thought, what the chance of call-up would do, for those whose rhetoric has in my opinion been rather .. um ... gung-ho. But I still reckon that it'd be certain that 'important' people would find neat jobs somewhere wielding pens rather than weapons.

If there were an equal chance of call up - what would happen to those people whose religious beliefs do not concur with war? (Don't for example, Jehovah's Witnesses fall under this?) Or for people who for other reasons don't agree with war, like the conscientious objectors didn't - or someone like my good USAmerican friend who doesn't believe there should even be a military.

And then ... what about also the people who maybe aren't fit to serve - borrowing from another thread now, what about all the US citizens who are obese? Would the authorities have to set up special systems for them, because no way could they be as active as others, and forcing them to try to be so could even seriously harm them (heart attacks, maybe?) ... or would fat people be excused? In which case ... would there then be the situation where some people would eat as much as possible to put on weight, so as to avoid being called?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Hemel
This means females as well as males?

i don't see why not... most females i know are much more reasonable then there male counterparts about when and where violence is acceptable

on the rest, there would have to be qualifications and some sort of lottery system... but it would do a lot to even the economic spread of who sacrifices the most... and those "important" people would be more likely to be exposed

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The US hasn't had a declared war since WWII. As for the War in Iraq - it was approved by Congress. The democrats may not like it - but Bush brought it before them - and they gave their okay for military action if the UN resolutions didn't work. There were TWO resolutions that were tried after the 17 previous.

What? You didn't declare war? That's damned ungentlemanly, sir, damned ungentlemanly.

[Count Comfect]

Females can be drafted as well as males - they just don't serve in front-line combat roles once they are in the armed forces.

Conscientious objectors do not have to serve - but they have to prove they have some reason for it: they can't just say "I don't like war." Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses and so on can get religious deferments.

At least in Vietnam (last time we had the draft), each person was classified by a draft board according to a physical from 1-A (person is in great physical shape) to 4-F (why on earth would we make this person join the armed forces?), and draft likelihood was stratified according to both this and a draft number assigned by lottery. So a 1-A would be almost certain to go, while a 4-F would never go, and someone in between would have to look at their draft number.

And I doubt obesity would factor in, since they'd make you work it off in boot camp

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
What? You didn't declare war? That's damned ungentlemanly, sir, damned ungentlemanly.

I think it was pretty clear to Hussein - don't you? it's just not an officially declared war as stated in the Constitution.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
interestingly enough, there was a democratic congressman (can't remember who) who was trying to institute the draft pre-iraq invasion

. . .

I think it was Charles B. Rangel of New York’s 15th Congressional District which comprises East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood.

on another note:

All countries should be careful of the foreign commitments that they get themselves entangled. It is usually easier to get into a conflict than to get out of a conflict.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
I think it was Charles B. Rangel of New York’s 15th Congressional District which comprises East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood.

that makes sense, since his constituency was probably hit harder than most by the current volunteer-only system

[Ruinel]

I have to agree that The Draft (aka conscription) seems to be not only unfair, but against what the US stands for.

Taking an individual's freedom's against their will, while they have not broken the laws, seems so unfair. Especially since the wars in which The Draft was enacted were far from defense of this country.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I have to agree that The Draft (aka conscription) seems to be not only unfair, but against what the US stands for.

Taking an individual's freedom's against their will, while they have not broken the laws, seems so unfair. Especially since the wars in which The Draft was enacted were far from defense of this country.

i can see your point... but i think if a draft were in place, along with a requirement to declare actual war outside of a true emergency that needed an immediate response... which iraq was not... we would be much more cautious about committing ourselves

we were very reluctant to enter ww1 and ww2, and may never have without the sinking of the lusitania and the sussex, or the attack on pearl harbor... a big reason for this is that our presidents wilson and fdr did not use today's tactics of executive action without a formal declaration of war... i think the fear of the draft was also a major factor, in ww2 at least

i was against us entering iraq, but all i've really done is talk on message boards about it... if i was in the position to be drafted, or one of my children were, i know i would be much more proactive... and i think others would too

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I have to agree that The Draft (aka conscription) seems to be not only unfair, but against what the US stands for.

Taking an individual's freedom's against their will, while they have not broken the laws, seems so unfair. Especially since the wars in which The Draft was enacted were far from defense of this country.

I wouldn't say that WWII was not in defense. Also - the reason we got into Vietnam was to help out the French.

But vietnam gave the draft a bad name because of how poorly run the war was. There was a show on Vietnam the other day on the History Channel - they didn't even have the recruits as being part of unit. There was no cohesion to the units. People would come in and out randomly from action so there was no continuity in command or in the soldiers. All units were in constant flux.

[Ragnarok]

I don't think WWII is a good example as model of the draft since the attack on Pearl Harbor directed the American attitude from neutral to going to war very quickly. Having the majority of Americans behind the support of the government changes the entire scenario completely.


Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR): "Selective Service [is] a vestigial bureaucracy of the cold war...[F]rom the beginning there has been no military necessity for Selective Service and the registration, the roster report. Jimmy Carter's 1979 Director of Selective Service found that 8 to 10 days could be saved by registration, but that because of the bottleneck at the training facilities, not one troop would be delivered one day sooner to the battlefield...[P]atriotism does not come in a postcard, unless you have some bizarre Publisher's Clearing House view of what constitutes patriotism and Selective Service."

Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL): The Selective Service, as we know it today, was created by President Carter to respond to fears that regional conflicts of the Soviet Union would grow and lead to a superpower showdown. The national defense structure at that time had been gutted and allowed the volunteer Armed Forces to fall to dangerously low levels... [T]hat is not the case today. This Congress has made a commitment to a strong national defense. We intend to keep military personnel equipped and ready to fight...In almost 10 years of the Vietnam war, just under 2.5 million Americans were sent to the combat area; one of every four of those young Americans were drafted. In 10 years we did not send the number of volunteers that can be deployed from our shores today... [This] amendment will not leave the U.S. defense vulnerable. We have 3 million volunteers ready to fight."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
then why not go back for a formal declaration?

Because it's not required. Congress gave it's authorization for the use of military force - that is all that is required. As any other country involved formally declared war on Iraq?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
I don't think WWII is a good example as model of the draft since the attack on Pearl Harbor directed the American attitude from neutral to going to war very quickly. Having the majority of Americans behind the support of the government changes the entire scenario completely.

We're at war right now - with terrorism and in effect with the Middle East fundamentalists. Many people don't look at this as a war and that is a danger. because all that is important is that the OTHERSIDE looks at it as a war.

As came out from the 9/11 Hearings - the CIA was working on terrorism as a criminal case, while Al Qaeda and the terrorists were treating it as all out war. Any country that bombed our embassies or attacked a military ship would be obliterated - but we just let them go.