National Service Act

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Someone here at work showed this to me. Me being 20 years old and with a family I am certainly hoping this doesn't pass. Look at it here: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html

Basically it is something that requires Men and Women ages 18-26 to serve 2 years in the military. Am i correct?

Also, I got some others here at work wondering and i'm not to involved into the politics. What kind of chances are there for this passing? Is all of this true? Why does the public not have anything to say about this?

If a lot of the democratic party has cut 1/3 of the military down in numbers of the past decade, why are they now pushing for a huge mandatory service?

Please, someone enlighten me.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
First, here's a link to the bill. Link

Second, I wouldn't worry about this. Congressman Rangle, from New York, is very opposed to the Iraq war. He thinks it would be a good idea to reinstitute the draft. I'm expressing his ideas imperfectly and you should look him up directly if you're interested in his philosophy. His theory is that why should only poor people die in these conflicts. Let's have an accross the board draft. Personally, I tend to agree with him. I don't think it's good for us as a society that the well off portion can commit the have nots to fight. The idea isn't very popular in Congress and it sure as hell isn't popular with Republicans who now control Congress.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
well, youve also got to remember that the people in iraq are VOLUNTEERS! they voluntarily joined the service to better their life. its not like they were forced to join!
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Genesys, this is the thing. I have no interest in being in the military. I have a good job and would not want to volunteer in being in such a thing. However, with this act you will be FORCED to go into the military for 2 years between ages of 18-26.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Heysus, Travis. As a Vietnam vet, I can't tell you how unimpressed I am with your problem. Oh My God, they want to force you into the service. What do you think happened in the Vietnam war and every previous war? Sorry this inconveniences you. But I would love to know, did you think this little escapade in Iraq was a good idea? In my opinion, the problem isn't two year's national service. It's that the service is spent in the military.
 

AEB

Senior member
Jun 12, 2003
681
0
0
Iraw war is different because there was no draft. This bill wouldnt pass i dont belive but sec 10 isnt so bad.(require women to register for SS) And it says you wont be forced if you cant meet the physical req. so just run real slow and act like ur weak
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Genesys, this is the thing. I have no interest in being in the military. I have a good job and would not want to volunteer in being in such a thing. However, with this act you will be FORCED to go into the military for 2 years between ages of 18-26.
Reading is fundamental

1. The bill says a period of national service, which may be military but not necesssarily.
2. This bill was proposed by Charlie Rangle, a shrill Demotard of the worst kind. It was an attempt to do what Demotards do best which is to interject class warfare and hopefully racebaiting whenever possible no matter how ridiculous the context. The argument that "everyone should share the sacrifice" is nothing more than just that. His argument being that "the poor" were fighting "the man's " war for him and if the poor minority (who volunteered) has to go then the Bush twins should too. I believe someone else repeated this idiocy in this thread. It total and complete BS and nothing but the class warfare and racebaiting I mentioned earlier. We have created the most powerful .mil the world has ever seen with an all volunteer force and we will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
3. This bill got pigeonholed 4 seconds after Charlie the 'tard proposed it. You have nothing to worry about.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
UltraQuiet. You and I will no doubt be meeting. The accusation that the Democrats interject class warfare and race baiting is one that I take objection to. The history of U.S. law has been that the Republicans pass something that favors the well off -- e.g., like the last Bush tax cut. When a Democrat points it out, all of a sudden it's class warfare. Do you doubt that rich people control legislation in the U.S.?
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
Heysus, Travis. As a Vietnam vet, I can't tell you how unimpressed I am with your problem. Oh My God, they want to force you into the service. What do you think happened in the Vietnam war and every previous war? Sorry this inconveniences you. But I would love to know, did you think this little escapade in Iraq was a good idea? In my opinion, the problem isn't two year's national service. It's that the service is spent in the military.
I realize this can be somewhat sound a bit selfish, but in all honesty I enjoy coming home to my family everynight. I enjoy working an 8-5 job. I enjoy life, and have no regrets of not signing up for the military. On the same note, I would be highly dissapointed to have to leave my family, lose my job (chances are I wouldn't get it back), and serve 2 years of my life in something I have no interest in. This is the land of the free. This seems more like a dictatorship thing than anything else. If I was forced to do it, i would. I wouldn't be the type to run from war if they drafted me for one reason or the other. But are you saying I should volunteer for such a thing and that because i'm not you are unimpressed? I don't think this is fair.

I have a lot of military in the family but my lifestyle is not of the average 20 year old. I do have a full-time job, i do have a family with my own house, and have a lot of responsibilities just as someone over the age of 26 would. Why should I be classified in the same category as someone who WANTS to join the military, who is single, has no kids, and is not getting an education for himself?

All in all, I respect you for being a vietnam veteran. I've had family in previous wars, such as my great uncle who was a tank commander under General Patton. But it's not the fact that this is a inconvenience, this is what dictators do, not a democracy. We are the land of the free, are you suggesting to be pushed into the military as slaves even after the war is over?
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Well Travis. I hope it works well for you. Just because my generation got screwed doesn't mean we should continue the tradition. Enjoy your time with your family. The world is not a fearful place unless we choose to believe that it is.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
In reply to Quiet, how do you know this was 'pigeon holed' 4 seconds after it was brought up? Has this already been turned down? What references do you have of this?

Note, i am not doubting you, i would just like to show this to other employee's here who seem to be very adamant about thinking this will go through.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
UltraQuiet. You and I will no doubt be meeting.
I look forward to it, sir.

The accusation that the Democrats interject class warfare and race baiting is one that I take objection to.
Your objection is duly noted.

The history of U.S. law has been that the Republicans pass something that favors the well off -- e.g., like the last Bush tax cut.
There is much more history than that. Someone your age has certainly been exposed to it. Both parties pass legislation that favors their constituency and their campaign donors. Do you doubt that?

When a Democrat points it out, all of a sudden it's class warfare.
Not all of a sudden. Just class warfare. It is the Democratic parties mantra. As soon as something doesn't go their way, they all start chanting it. Rangel's bill is a perfect example of that. As soon as it didn't go his way it was the "poor soldier" fighting a war for "the man". The republicans are guilty of it too but I see it a lot more from the Dems.

Do you doubt that rich people control legislation in the U.S.?
It has been my oft stated opinion that there is too much money in politics. Period. I don't care if your money is coming from labor unions, Enron, trial lawyers or the AARP there is too much bought influence in all politics no matter if they have an R, D, or an I after their name.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Ultra is right. This is a dead bill. It was introduced for talking (political propaganda) purposes. There are services that deal with the possibility of a bill passing. It's not worth using one. This is a dead bill. Ultra and I frequently don't see eye to eye. I prefer more literal statements, that's why I didn't say that this bill was dead on arrival. But it was. Go enjoy your family.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
I would be in favor of such legislation if for no other reason than to see all the self centered whiners carted off to basic training. :D

Besides, I don't know what Travis is crying about. We already have a thing called the Selective Service which gives the govenment the right to conscript into military service.
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
They can't already take care of the veterans right now. The bill would create a whole bunch of veterans that would have the crappy service that the VA has today. Stupid bill, they should put all the rich people in the millitary. Everyone on the battlefield would all run away if they saw Bill Gates coming at them. ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS