We're all fucked.

[Notorious Lightning Yoshi]

This is real. It is not a joke, not a fluke, and not bad information. You can do a google for "draft 2005" and find it yourself.

The administration is COUNTING on, yet again, the 18-26-year-olds to have the lowest voter turnout -- and if they do, this is what will come to pass.

Post this on EVERY FORUM. Post it EVERYWHERE. I don't care if it's some little nothing six-person mailing list or the Newgrounds Message Boards.

Email this to EVERYONE. Everyone you know. People you barely know. People you might not have spoken to in awhile. Even all your relatives.

We canNOT let our voices be unhear again, we canNOT let this happen, and we canNOT let this man get re-elected.

If you are pro-Bush, I am not attacking him as a human being. please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, conservative, liberal, or moderate, read, and I gurarantee your opinions will change. :


... the administration is gearing up for a
return of the draft. Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26)
starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about.
This literally affects 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 oth! er things, eliminates higher education as a shelter
and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has
already been made very difficult. Please send this on to all the
parents and teachersyou 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/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m& 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 av!
oiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the 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 selective 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 effect 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 draf! t $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.
________________________________

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young
persons 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003)
Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
________________________________
Jump to: Titles, Status, Committees, Related Bill Details,
Amendments, Cosponsors, Summary ________________________________
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Reinstate draft bill (identified by CRS)

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Universal National Service Act of 2003

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons
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.

________________________________
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
1/7/2003: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
2/3/2003: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
2/3/2003: Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.
________________________________
COMMITTEE(S): ________________________________
RELATED BILL DETAILS: (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

Bill: Relationship:
S.89 Identical bill identified by CRS ________________________________
AMENDMENT(S): ***NONE*** ________________________________
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)

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)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Maybe you should look at who the chief sponsor of the bill is before you refer to "the administration."

[Anonymous]

That's great! Its about time they reinstituted the draft, I'm all for anything that would thin out the ranks of the I-Mockery fucktards. Although, we all know that most of those fucktard cowards would run off to Canada, if they don't already live in that fucktard country.
They'll be dealt with once we annex it though. I've been making a list during my time here.

LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE STATES OF AMERICA!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

lock thread, lock thread!

[Crying Baby Jesus]

lol Mad Max has breached the thread!

[conus]

Here's what they had to say about it on the Urban Legends Reference site:

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

[Preechr]

TO HELL WITH THAT!!! LET'S GET ALL PISSED OFF!!!

[Emu]

I'M SO PISSED I COULD GO TO A PROTEST WITH A SIGN IT'LL SAY "NO, FUCK YOU" IT'LL BE GRAET

[Preechr]

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT!!!

*lights pitchfork*

*waits in angry-mob line*

[ziggytrix]

Hell, I'm FOR this now, just because after 21 birthdays are so meaningless. There's the insurance drop at, um, 25? So there'd be another milestone... Having just turned 27 tho, I'd feel like I missed out on celebrating my draft ineligible birthday. Oh well. :/

[mburbank]

While I think this is a trumped up urban legend right now, I think any of you in the age brackett or with kids approaching it are foolish not to think about this issue.

It's got bi-partisan support, though for different reasons.

If US policy continues in the direction it's trending (Unending state of 'war' against terrorism, pre-emptive foreign policy) I think it's inevitable.

If my daughters had to grow up in a US that required some sort of national service, I think that would be fine. But military service? In quagmire wars of choice like Iraq? I think not.

How long will we have a large enough volunteer army when we are underfoirced in Afghanistan and pinned down in Iraq, so much so we have to send planefulls of first responders in the National Gurad there for years at a time and we institute stop loss? What chunk of the population elligible right now is saying 'hey, National Guard looks like a fun deal, I guess I'll sign up?' Does anyone have any info on how hard recruiting is these days? Do you think Iran's current behavior toward the UN isn't influenced by their perception we don't have the forces for another war?

Rich white folks (and most of your senators on both sides of the aisle are rich white folks) have always found a way to keep their loved ones off the front lines, so they have no real reason to be opposed to a draft. Think about it.

[mburbank]

While I think this is a trumped up urban legend right now, I think any of you in the age brackett or with kids approaching it are foolish not to think about this issue.

It's got bi-partisan support, though for different reasons.

If US policy continues in the direction it's trending (Unending state of 'war' against terrorism, pre-emptive foreign policy) I think it's inevitable.

If my daughters had to grow up in a US that required some sort of national service, I think that would be fine. But military service? In quagmire wars of choice like Iraq? I think not.

How long will we have a large enough volunteer army when we are underfoirced in Afghanistan and pinned down in Iraq, so much so we have to send planefulls of first responders in the National Gurad there for years at a time and we institute stop loss? What chunk of the population elligible right now is saying 'hey, National Guard looks like a fun deal, I guess I'll sign up?' Does anyone have any info on how hard recruiting is these days? Do you think Iran's current behavior toward the UN isn't influenced by their perception we don't have the forces for another war?

Rich white folks (and most of your senators on both sides of the aisle are rich white folks) have always found a way to keep their loved ones off the front lines, so they have no real reason to be opposed to a draft. Think about it.

[AChimp]

I thought about it twice because of you, Max.

But, seriously, while I doubt that the draft would be instated anytiem soon, it is always a possibility during times of prolonged military conflict. However, I will only believe that they will ever draft women when I see it (unless it's an "end of the world, enemy at the gates" situation).

[Preechr]

National Guard Recruiting Lags

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2004

Iraq Elections In Peril?

(AP) The Army National Guard will fall 5,000 soldiers short of its recruiting goal this year, in part because fewer in the active-duty force are switching to part-time service, knowing how frequently Guard units are being dispatched to war zones, the Guard's top general said Thursday.

It will be the first time since 1994 that the Guard has missed its sign-up goal.

Army Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an Associated Press interview that he's concerned by the shortfall but believes it will not be a long-term trend.

"This is something that can't be ignored. I've got to watch it every day," he said. "But it's not something that I would say indicates that we're breaking. I think it indicates that the recruiting climate has gotten tougher, and that means we need to adjust to a tougher market."

The Guard had set a goal of 56,000 recruits for the budget year ending Sept. 30 but is likely to end up with about 51,000, he said.

Blum cited two main reasons why the Guard is attracting fewer soldiers from the active-duty force -- a pool of recruits that in some states accounts for half of the new Guard members in a given year.

One reason is the active-duty Army is prohibiting soldiers already in units in Iraq or Afghanistan — or preparing to deploy there — from leaving the service, even if their enlistment term is up.

The other reason, Blum said, is that active-duty soldiers know a growing number of Guard units are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, so they figure there is little to be gained, in terms of reduced personal risk, by switching from active duty to the Guard.

"If you want to get away from active duty and you don't want to take a chance that you're going to deploy that quickly again, then you probably are going to make a clean break for a while and not join the Guard or Reserve, and so we are suffering," Blum said.

He also disclosed that the 86th Brigade of the Vermont Army National Guard has been added to the list of Guard units told they will deploy to Iraq for the next troop rotation, which is under way. That unit is likely to go early next year, another official said.

Attracting recruits who have no prior military service, meanwhile, has been made more difficult because many Guard units are spending a year or more abroad and therefore are not available to persuade young people in their communities to join the military, Blum said.

"Our most effective recruiting is word-of-mouth," he said. "When you have 27 percent of your force deployed overseas, they're not doing much word-of-mouth recruiting."

To respond to the shortfall, Blum said he will increase the number of recruiters and put more effort into targeting young people in high school and college with no military service.

Another key aspect of maintaining Guard strength is what the military calls retention -- the Guard members who re-enlist. Blum said the Army Guard is meeting its retention goal this year and finding re-enlistments are higher in units that deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan than those that did not.

He said he believes this reflects the sense of pride and commitment that develops in Guard units when they are put in harm's way, as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least 114 Army National Guard soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

Blum expressed confidence that the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, both of which he oversees, can keep up their fast pace of activity both domestically and abroad over the long term, but only if he can provide more predictability on the frequency of mobilizations.

He said he would like to be able to assure Guard members, their families and employers that they will be called on no more than once every four to six years. He said he cannot do that now because there are not enough deployable combat units in the active and reserve forces. But a reorganization now under way in the active and reserve forces will eventually increase the forces available for deployment, he said.


By Robert Burns
©MMIV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.