GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- Alpha Phi Alpha (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=42)

- - Smh (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=51119)

I'm not sure if this is true but if it is.....

Quote:

They are trying to pass this bill quietly. Bush has projected that we
would be in Iraq for at least 10 more years.

Draft expected to start July 15, 2005

PLEASE TAKE HEAD TO THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE AND PASS TO ANYONE YOU CAN THINK
OF. IF ANYONE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SITUATION IN IRAQ, I'M QUITE SURE YOU
HAVE SEEN THE LIST OF NAMES OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN. PLEASE LISTEN
CAREFULLY, MY ESTIMATION TELLS ME THAT AT LEAST 90% OF THE SOLDIERS KILLED
WERE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 - 26. THERE WERE A FEW OLDER BUT THE
PERCENTAGE WASN'T THAT GREAT. IF THAT ISN'T A WAKE UP CALL-NOTHING IS!

The possibility of mandatory drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26)
starting June 15, 2005, is something, I believe, everyone should know.
This literally affects EVERYONE since we all have or know children that
will have to go if this bill passes.

If there are children in your family, READ this.

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and
HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at
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.

Even those voters who currently support us. Actions abroad may still object
to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a
say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this
plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and
includes women in the draft.

Also, crossing into Canada ha s already been made very difficult.

Actions, actions, actions:

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you 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!

Please also hahahahaha to your representatives to ask them why they aren't
telling their constituents about these bills-and hahahahaha to newspapers
and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important
story.

The draft:

$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss)
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.

Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
<http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html>
to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

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 a permanent
state of war on terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice
but to draft.

<http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html>
<http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html>

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year:
<http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp>
<http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp>
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the
common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18-26] 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."

These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the
U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep
would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs,
John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the
declaration involves a 30-point plan which imp lements, among other things,
a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.
Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class
lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.

Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their
current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

WHAT TO DO:

- Tell all your friends
- Call the Mercury News (Newsdesk) 408-920-5000
- E-mail the SF Chronicle at: Tbyrne@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:Tbyrne@sfchronicle.com>
<http://us.f803.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Com...fchronicle.com>

- Contact your Senators and tell them to oppose these bills. Barbara
Boxer: 415-403-0100; Diane Feinstein: 415/393-0707
Anna Eshoo: 202/225-8104; Nancy Pelosi: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
<mailto:sf.nancy@mail.house.gov>
<http://us.f803.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Com...mail.house.gov>

For the full list of represen tatives (53) and websites, go to:
<http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...k.cgi?site=ctc>>
<http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...ite=ctc&state=>

We just can't sit and pretend that by ignoring it, it will go away. We
must voice our concerns and create the world we want to live in for our
children and their children's children.

I heard a few weeks ago that the politician Renkal (sp?) from New York wanted to propose re-instating the draft. His rationale was that many military personnel on the "front lines" are from low socio-economic Americans. He contends that since most of these groups blacks and whites are being killed at alarming numbers that there should be a draft. Therefore, he feels that the draft should take place to make sure that ALL who are eligible can participate.

I'm sure the WEALTHY Americans have NOT enlisted in the military. I'm sure that Bush and the OTHER powers that be do not have daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. on the "front lines" in military gear fighting.

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA2D '91

I'm sure the WEALTHY Americans have NOT enlisted in the military. I'm sure that Bush and the OTHER powers that be do not have daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. on the "front lines" in military gear fighting.

Co-Signing...

The ironic thing about it all is the fact that just a few years ago the they were reducing the size of the military. Now they want to reinstate the Draft becuase they probably feel that they are spread thin.

SMH

Thanks for the information Frat! It greatly disappoints me, especially since I fall in that particular age category, even after Jun. of 2005. I would love to see that data that leads to the predicting of ten years needed for American soilders to be over there.

I am thoroughly disgusted with this administration and more than ready to combat this ridiculousness. I will spread the word.

As long as they ship off the Bush twins I'd suck it up, okay let me stop lying cause if they tried to take my baby brother I'd have to open up a can of whoop ass on them.

Quote:

Originally posted by msn4med1975
As long as they ship off the Bush twins I'd suck it up, okay let me stop lying cause if they tried to take my baby brother I'd have to open up a can of whoop ass on them.

Co -signing

Whatever happened to men having to at least serve in the military for what? 2 or 3 years?

Many years ago men did not have a choice. For some of those individuals who want to kill innocent people on our streets daily, they should be DRAFTED first. Maybe they can take their anger out on the "real" enemy. :confused:

I know other countries have had mandatory military service but I can't think of any time during our recent (last hundred years or so) that anyone was required to serve. But they did use to make hoodlums do jailtime OR enlist in the service.

I thought back in the day, 50s or such, most men had to do a stint in the military? At least 2 years. :confused: I remember my father (and relatives around his age)was in the military BRIEFLY. This was during the Korean war. This delayed his entering or either graduating from college. I can't remember, but I'm sure he would not have gone if he didn't have to. :confused:

If my mind is right, I think the mandatory service requirement was killed off in the early 1970s or such, during the Vietnam War. My father was career military and he enlisted in the 1940s.

See, I THOUGHT so. :rolleyes: :D

None of the men in my family, and this was pre 1970 were required to serve, ie hey you've turned 21 and now you have to go fight for two years. My father opted to enlist in the late sixties and retired 91-ish. What stopped in 1973 was the draft, ie being randomly selected to go fight without any say so in the matter. We drafted in high numbers during most wars and apparently plan on doing that again.

PS, I just thought about something. This may just be a terminology thing. Because so many folks I know have had to return home for mandatory service, I think of that as it's expected of everyone to serve for a few years as opposed to what it has been in this country. By that I mean, folks do end up fighting and maybe longer than they want but it's not expected that every man of a certain age goes and fights.

Quote:

I agree with you Soror!!! I have 2 younger brothers and 2 young brother-in-laws. I'm not trying to have them go on the front lines!!!!!!!!!

This is very real. S89 is presently in committee

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Also, in the House as well...

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Check out the congresspersons who support this bill

An interesting piece about the forwarded email...

http://www.ucfnews.com/news/2004/06/...s-683963.shtml

Quote:

During the past week, the Future has received numerous e-mails and letters concerning the supposed 2005 draft legislation currently in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives and the lack of coverage thereof.

The legislation, called the Universal National Service Act of 2003, has many UCF students worried that they will soon have to contribute two years of work to "national service" - mostly military duty - which will be required of every man between the ages of 18 and 26.

School would not be a deterrent to forcing each young adult to becoming an army of one in service of the United States. College-bound teenagers and twenty-somethings would still have to contribute the two years of service, though civil service, like working at the post office, would be an option.

Liberals are blaming the Bush administration; many forwarded a popular e-mail claiming: "The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the election."

Too bad these seemingly intelligent, concerned young adults who are fired up enough to send letters to editors of local newspapers are too busy to look up the actual legislation itself. Instead, the wannabe activists are doing no research on the subject, which is a pretty easy one to find information on. A quick click on any popular online search engine will turn up some easy-to-find interesting information.

For instance, the current administration is not trying to push the legislation through. Democrats sponsor both bills. Not one Republican has signed on to even co-sponsor a bill. Additionally, Bush's secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has expressly said that there is no need for a draft.

Secondly, no one is trying to force through the legislation. There hasn't been any official action on either bill for well over a year. The Senate bill, S. 89, has been stuck in the Senate Committee on Armed Services since Jan. 7, 2003. Similarly the House bill, H.R. 163, has been waiting for an executive comment from the Department of Defense since Feb. 3, 2003.

Going back to the idea of Democrats sponsoring these two bills, immediately a red flag should go up. Yes, there are a small number of Democrats who are for the war in Iraq, but the majority of pro-war advocates are Republicans. Considering Republicans and Democrats frequently co-sponsor bills together, it's odd that a Republican wouldn't extend an olive branch and venture to co-sponsor either of the bills.

The Republicans, obviously, realize something the recent uprising of grassroots campaigners do not: the Democrats are making an anti-war statement.

The congressmen sponsoring the bill are hoping that the threat of sending sons and daughters to war will inspire an organized anti-war effort amongst Americans. They are hoping other state representatives will understand how real the war is if their private-school-educated, Yale-bound sons are sent to an increasingly unpopular war rather than faceless names.

There is nothing wrong with being active in politics and writing to local newspapers with valid concerns. In fact, college is the time when everyone should be deciding what they believe in and what they're willing to take a stand for.

But activists must be informed to make any sort of impact.

No one can take a certain position seriously if basic facts are ignored or avoided. It takes validity and credibility away from the cause.

Students taking up a cause should research it. Then, they should take the time to put the reasons for the cause in their own words. Packaged statements from an obviously biased source does little to convince real people with average intelligence.