Moms may be interested to know about a twin bill that is trying to be passed while the rest of the US is concentrating on elections. If passed ALL men and women 18-26 years of age would be required to serve. They could be required to report as early as June 2005. Twin bills are S89 and HR 163.

By Palmbchprincess on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:40 pm:

I'm lost. What are you referencing???

By Juli4 on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:10 pm:

yeah more info please

By Mommy8 on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:26 pm:

http://thomas.loc.gov/ Just enter HR 163 and click search and it will bring up the bill for you to read.

By Mommy8 on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:43 pm:

You can also visit the selective service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals and you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase military size in case of terrorism. This critical piece of legislation will affect our undergraduates, children, and grandchildren. Take the time to let your congressman know how you feel about this legislation. www.house.gov www.senate.gov Also, you may want to write your representatives. Just type "congress" into the aol search engine and input your zip code. A list of your reps will pop up and a way to email them. I personally very strongly support the military (I have a brother that served) but I also very strongly believe this should be a personal decision to serve not a law. And I am even more against sending my daughters that we have trained to be young ladies off to fight.

By Tunnia on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:40 pm:

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not trying to step on your toes Mommy8, I just wanted you and the others to know that this isn't something you have to worry about or spend your time writing to your congressman about. It is fiction. Here is what www.truthorfiction.com has to say about the Twin Bills S89 and HR163:

Summary of the eRumor
The eRumor warns that there are two bills before Congress that, if passed, would bring back the military draft and make it mandatory for both boys and girls starting in June, 2005.

The Truth
The bills, S.89 and H.R.163 are real.
But they are not new.
An eRumor started circulating in June, 2004 warning that the draft was only a year away.
In reality, these twin bills have existed since 2003 and have never gotten out of committees.
In other words, they are stagnant.
Nobody in Washington seriously expects a draft and certainly not by 2005.
It's known as the "reinstate draft" bill or the "Universal National Service Act of 2003."
The wording of the bill says it is "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."
It would require U.S. citizens and other residents, both male and female, between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve two years of "national service."

The reason the bills have gotten attention in 2004 is the military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terrorism.
There has been debate about troop strength in Iraq and the status of all the U.S. Armed Forces.
The U.S. Selective Service, however, says that despite the Internet stories, the agency is not getting ready to conduct a draft.
It says it is ready to do so should the President and Congress decide, but "that responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new."
The Selective Service further says that "...both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft."

Last updated 6/18/04

By Colette on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 03:49 pm:

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

By Mommy8 on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:42 am:

It's great news that they are stagnant. And I did know of our CURRENT president's position. He has stated that he believes there is no need for a draft because we do have so many volunteers.

By Insaneusmcwife on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 04:35 pm:

JMHO, and most of you probably aren't going to like it, If you are able bodied and you live in this country you should serve this country. I feel that everyone that is physically able to serve should indeed serve a minimun of 1 term. For those of you who feel it is too much of a burden to serve, I feel it too much of a burden for my husband and the rest of the military to protect you! Again JMHO. FYI-If I could I most certainly would!

By Bea on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:10 pm:

Kristy, why can't you?

By Insaneusmcwife on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:35 pm:

I tried to enlist in the AirForce right out of high school but I failed the physical so they turned me away. I have and always have had really bad Asthma. But I do faithfully volunteer in my husbands command. I am currently awaiting Key Volunteer Coordinator Training. As of right now I have 23 women that I am in constant contact with trying to help them (and myself) get through this deployment. I help out with the Caring Circle as well as the unit newsletter. If my asthma wasn't so bad, requiring me to use my nebulizer on a regular basis, I would have already joined.

By Juli4 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:06 am:

First of all if women and men were forced to enlist who would stay home and take care of the children. Should we leave the children orphans forcing both parents to enlist. I support the military and would support a draft if it were needed, but not both sexes. I do not want my daughter to fight in combat it is unfair to the men and women fighting. As much as some women do not want to embrace the way the are and the important roles that they can have women are not the same as men minus a penis. Physically and emotionally they are different and I do not support women in the military (combat).

And who would have taken care of your children and home. I am not leaving my children especially if my husband is drafted also!! That is insane. Raising a family (the next military) is serving your country. What good would it do the country to have a bunch of orphaned children running around. i appreciate the military men and women but I do not follow the logic that if you are able bodies you have to join the military. I as a woman and mother will not join the military regardless of my physical capabilities. You have to think about the next generation that will lead our nation also. Not just now. Thank you for your service we all should do what we can. As of now there is not a draft for which I am thankful and I do not support sending women to war. Women (or any other non military) play a very important role during this time. Who do you think worked in the factories while the men were away in ww2 making the supplies the men needed to fight? To send all able bodied people away is not a good strategy.

By Mommy8 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:28 am:

I'm sure glad my brother wasn't worried about who HE was protecting!! He was fighting for America; period. And please don't tell our FBI men, police officers, firefighters, doctors & nurses, and teachers they don't serve our country. They might be just a little offended.

By Boxzgrl on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:17 pm:

I support our military very well and I believe in women being involved in the military and government in all aspects *except* those calling for physical work. Its just natural that women are not as strong as men and can not handle as much as them. DH absolutely dislikes women in the Marine Corps working with him. He just thinks its not their place. And I tend to agree. Im just old fashioned in the sense that my job is to stay home and keep the house going while DH makes the $$.JMO though

By Cocoabutter on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 03:01 pm:

There are plenty of ways to serve the country without "serving" in the military. Kristie is doing her part. For those of us who do not go into combat or leave our families, it is our responsibilities to do what it takes to hold down the homefront and support the military from here. That is in fact what the proposed legislation is for- merely to get all citizens to contribute, not to enlist for combat.

By Palmbchprincess on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:11 pm:

I personally wouldn't agree with a mandatory draft. There are many not qualified, or physically unable to serve. I also agree with Juli.. who would care for our families?? And women can't do many jobs in the military. My daddy and Nate are civil servants, and while Nate did serve 2 enlistments, I think the duty they serve in our communities is just as valuable as military duty. I would make a sorry soldier, I know this, but forcing me to serve wouldn't make me any better. This ultimately made my decision to not join... I don't feel I am cut out for it.

By Insaneusmcwife on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:17 pm:

I didn't say anything about women going into combat. You can serve the country and not go into combat. There are plenty of jobs for men and women that don't require going into combat.

By Insaneusmcwife on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:30 pm:

I do apologize for being so witchy, I am just so sick of the negativity about the military. I am sick in tired of some people wanting everything handed to them but not wanting to work for it. It really irks me to hear people complain that their rights are being violated but yet they are the first to complain about the military fighting to defend those same rights. It is a very emotional time for me right now and I know I came across wrong.

P.S. I am not referencing anyone on this board when I say some people, I just mean in general.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:47 pm:

I've thought about this issue long and hard, and I have to say that I think there is some merit in every citizen and resident being required to do some form of service for a couple of years, whether in the military or some other form of service to the nation/community at large.

I remember vividly the draft protesters during the Viet Nam war, which was the major reason for ending the draft. And I know that one of the reasons they were protesting (not the only reason) is that there were so many ways for people of privilege to avoid service, so that the majority of those actually sent into combat were young men who did not have those options.

An across the board, no exceptions except for serious health reasons, period of service for everyone has more of an opportunity to be fair.

Have any of you seen the movie "Starship Trooper". It bears little resemblance to the real point of the book, which was about a young man coming of age and learning to value the system he was fighting to protect. One of the points early in the book was that anyone could volunteer, no matter what their age or condition - a blind person could be used in some service that didn't require eyesight. And you could not vote unless you had done a minimum period of service - in the military or otherwise - on the theory that only those who were willing to sacrifice a few years of their lives should have a voice in how the government was run. A radical idea and not one I necessarily support, but still - it makes me think.

Many high schools in this area have started requiring a period of community service (as defined by the school) as a requirement for graduation - and many parents have gone to court to have this requirement overturned as being "unfair". On the other hand, my dentist told me last week that he had his younger (16 year old) son participate in a program doing service in Costa Rica this summer, for two reasons - one was Spanish immersion, to help his son become really fluent, and the other was that he felt his son, of a privileged background, should spend some time learning how underprivileged people have to live and spend some time trying to help him. He said his son came back with a very real and strong appreciation of things he had taken for granted as his "right" before that experience.

I guess I'm wandering far afield. Politically, I don't think there is any chance of reviving the draft. And at this time, I think it should not be revived. But if it ever is, I think both men and women should be drafted - with careful attention to not taking both parents away from children at the same time. I agree there are some things that women physically just cannot do, but there is a whole lot of stuff needing doing in the military that doesn't require physical strength and isn't necessarily at the front.

By Boxzgrl on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:50 pm:

Good points Ginny. I agree with you about men and women serving but I dont think I made myself clear in my earlier post. I just dont think women need to be involved in the physical work, but other things they are needed for are fine.

By Ginny~moderator on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 05:57 am:

You were clear, Melissa, and I understood what you meant. My comment was not in specific response to you but rather a general comment.

By Boxzgrl on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:30 am:

By Wells on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 01:18 am:

Normally I am a rabid anti-draft kind of guy, primarily on the grounds that it is a clear case of slavery and it is clearly targeted at young men (who will do the bulk of the killing and dying, usually before they have begun to live). My attitude has grown even stronger now that I have children (two sons and one daughter) whom, it some have their way, will soon be eligible for government-sponsored slavery. Nevertheless, I could be persuaded if:

(a) only people over 45 would be drafted, so that those who now think they are "safe" would not be. (I'm 46, so I would be drafted),

(b) both genders were drafted,

(c) anyone with political aspirations, or in office, would be drafted,

and

(d) anyone who votes for the draft would be drafted.

By Colette on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 05:42 am:

Interesting points, Doug!