Amendment 1528 by senator Lieberman to National Defense Authoritation Act for Fiscal Year 2010 provides authority to increase active duty military personel in years 2010, 2011 and 2012. This amendment has hiden meaning of possible activation of Selective Service System in the near future. Only senator Feingold D-WI voted against this amendment. Voters should held pressure for Democratic party and the President when it is early enough. In case many democratic reps. would be against it the plan would hurt The GOP and is unlikely to succeed.
Well two things. One I've said before. We invented the military-industrial complex and pretty much since WWII the military gets what it wants, and it does not want this. They may have some mass conscription in Finland, but as you know, it requires that the military take people like you Dark Lady, and I assure you that the U.S. military does not want people like you in it. It wants highly motivated gung-ho types, not a couple million people who would rather be anywhere else.
Two. Joe Lieberman is a joke. The Republicans don't trust him (because he can't be trusted) and the Democrats think he is a turncoat (which he is), and he is only barely in office as it is. So his sponsorship is not a positive deal. And, at any rate, providing for an increase is not a mandate to increase.
It would open up so many problems and debates - serious social issues, like do women go? Are gays exempt? - that I don't think any sane person (and there are a few left in D.C.) would go there.
The chances of this passing are laughable. As Tekla already said, Lieberman isn't exactly the politician on capitol hill with the most influence. At this point, he ought to be drafting anything he presents to the legislature in crayon. If the draft were to have ever been reinstated in current times, it would've been at the hands of Bush back when enlistment was very low and his 'war on terror' was in full swing.
Secondly, this is, again, a United States issue. I don't give a damn what happens in Finland- why do you care what happens here?
At this point, he ought to be drafting anything he presents to the legislature in crayon.
I think even that might even be too sharp a tool to give to old Joementum.
The social issues are just too much. After the last disaster draft during the Vietnam war just the issue of social class almost tore the country up. So any real draft can't have the exemptions that the last one did, which means Percy, Throckmorton and Winfred are going to have the same chance of going as Buck, Ed and BillyBob - and that ain't gonna fly at all. Second, are girls going to be drafted in a 1:1 ratio with guys? If not, be prepared to kiss all the advancements in woman's rights away overnight. And I'm sure that many of the women in power would argue for a female draft for exactly that reason. Third, is DADT still in force? So all I have to do to get out of this, and go back to college is show up in a dress? My god, you'd have a run on dresses at Macy's. Dad's all over the country would be out buying junior his first skirt.
Selective service requires only men to register. I'm assuming the only reason this hasn't been done away with is because who in their right mind would say, 'This is unfair. I have the right to be forced to go to war against my personal beliefs just like those guys do!'?
and yes, DADT is still in force. so much for the draft here in SF.
But, y'know, whatever. I'm a disabled transsexual. They'd have to be pretty desperate to come looking for me.
Another point is that there are 300 million people in the U.S. with plenty of unemployment. If they wanted to fund 20,000 more military they would have no trouble finding volunteers.
Answers for Tekla's questions:
Only men would be drafted because Selective Servise System requires only males to register. DADT would probably mean that drafted gays do not get any benefits from their service but are sent to Afganistan or Iraq or etc.
To protect women's equality in other areas of life ERA would be introduced and would have a chanche to passing with goverment's support.
And Lieberman Amendment has yet been accepped in roll call vote.
DL, your understanding of politics and the workings of the legislative branch in the USA are extremely lacking.
Your imagination, however, is not.
QuoteDADT would probably mean that drafted gays do not get any benefits from their service but are sent to Afganistan or Iraq or etc.
lol, what?
Do not worry Mister. According to SSS ''the birth sex'' determines who could be drafted so you are safe.
Honey, if they called up a draft and only men went, you'd get riots. Massive resistance, and not only from the guys, but also from a lot of women who would quickly understand that it would be a huge setback and quickly make them second-class citizens again. People on both sides would strongly object (and when American's actually get around to objecting to stuff, things burn) to Bob and Bill having to go in, while Suzie and Muffy get to get a head start on their education and career path. Ain't happening.
ERA would be tried to pass in congress to ensure that women's position does not go to worse. And here the Constitution guarentees equal rights and only males are drafted to serve because ''Russia may attack''. Women get 1-2 year start for their studies and all people saying that is unfair are silenced by ''general attitude''.
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 10:28:36 AM
Do not worry Mister. According to SSS ''the birth sex'' determines who could be drafted so you are safe.
No kidding. I am aware of and generally abide by the laws of my country.
I can just imagine what atrocities military there would do to MTF. They would probably be accepped to service and then sent to military prisons or to military psychiatric institutions.
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
I can just imagine what atrocities military there would do to MTF. They would probably be accepped to service and then sent to military prisons or to military psychiatric institutions.
actually, post-op MTFs can serve.
here ya go with military prisons again...
They would probably be accepped to service and then sent to military prisons or to military psychiatric institutions.
Which, by the way, is exactly why the military does not want this. They are not in the prison biz, or in the psychiatric industry either. Every penny spend on such things is one less penny they get to spend on weapons systems. And they would not be accepted in the first place. They get kicked out now as it is.
I'm telling you that our military does not want it, and what our military does not want, it tends not to get (weapons systems built in powerful Congressional districts aside - which they just take and mothball anyway).
Quote from: Mister on July 24, 2009, 10:48:39 AM
actually, post-op MTFs can serve.
here ya go with military prisons again...
Other men would make their service untolerable. ''Vaginaed men with breasts.''
They would be raped rather sooner than later.
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 10:52:22 AM
Other men would make their service untolerable. ''Vaginaed men with breasts.''
They would be raped rather sooner than later.
uh.. that's why you don't say anything and just live your life. if you want to be the poster child for transsexuals around the world, stay out of the military.
In case post-ops must serve so must pre-ops then. Their anatomy is still ''generally consider as male in the USA''.
Which in our own special American wisdom is exactly why they are excluded from service now.
So in case the draft is instituted post-op MTF must serve but pre-op MTF not? That is highly odd.
Fact of the matter is, Dark Lady, that there's just no way that the USA will reinstate a military draft.
DarkLady, hun, you really don't want to get into a political debate with Tekla and Mister... You will loose, I promise you. I won't even go their and I consider myself relatively well versed in the subject.
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
So in case the draft is instituted post-op MTF must serve but pre-op MTF not? That is highly odd.
The current draft is set up to only require men to serve. Post-op MTFs are not men. Pre-op MTFs are unable to change their sex with the federal government and are, in the eyes of the government, men.
According to SSS the''orginal birthcertificate marked sex'' is the indication for registry not federally legal sex as ''male''.
Either way, the military is not going to want them. It doesn't take them now, why would it do so later?
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
According to SSS the''orginal birthcertificate marked sex'' is the indication for registry not federally legal sex as ''male''.
Dark, let's face it. you have no clue what you're talking about. Please go obsess about the Finnish government.
Does Finland even have a government? I never hear about it.
Quote from: tekla on July 24, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
Does Finland even have a government? I never hear about it.
Niether do I, but I don't ever even hear of most countries on the map, which makes me wonder if they even exist outside of a map. ::) :P
Miss Teen South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton answering the question
Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
"I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are unable to do so,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don't have maps.
and uh...
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as...
and, I believe they should uh,
our education over here,
in the U.S. should help the U.S.
or should help South Africa,
and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future,
for us."
Quote from: tekla on July 24, 2009, 11:40:20 AM
Miss Teen South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton answering the question
Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
"I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are unable to do so,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don't have maps.
and uh...
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as...
and, I believe they should uh,
our education over here,
in the U.S. should help the U.S.
or should help South Africa,
and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future,
for us."
lol.
It took me several readings of that to make any sence of it, and the majority of it has nothing to do with the US not being able to locate itself on a map.
But back to the topic, I wouldn't be too upset if they drafted me, but only if they drafted me as a woman. That way, I don't feel so insulted and I feel it's more fair to draft the women and the men equally.
DL why not focus on the North Korea military and draft.
Quote from: DarkLady on July 24, 2009, 11:53:47 AM
They may not have the draft. There is now sure data about their situation. And they have total gay ban so it would be easy to avoid the draft there.
Which is one thing I don't understand. Why do militarys in general seem to have such a shared dislike of gays?
I find that extremely irrational. Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are some kind of pervert.
Quote of bashing deleted post removed -- Nichole
Hmm, I was actually thinking of starting my own banana republic with yours truly as fatherly dictator. If I do, I'll offer you residency, DL, with a guarantee that there'll be no draft and no military prison for you. Hell, I'll grant you immunity from prosecution for life!
Meanwhile, I need to recruit for chief of my secret police. Any takers?
All together now: "Viva El Presidente!"
Meanwhile, I need to recruit for chief of my secret police.
Announcing it like this kind of defeats the rational for having a secret police in the first place doesn't it?
Ah yes, poor choice of words. Let's rephrase it as "head of the ministry of harmonious compliance" or something like that.
Meanwhile, I need to recruit for chief of my secret police. Any takers?
Raises hand.
Quote from: michellesofl on July 25, 2009, 01:44:24 PM
Meanwhile, I need to recruit for chief of my secret police. Any takers?
Raises hand.
:) The "Does not play well with others" tag line implies you'd be a great candidate. Noted!
If it does happen, I'm not surprised. I saw it coming for the past decade with expansion of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know the US government is itching for a battle with Iran and to a lesser extent North Korea.
Both Republicans and Democrats don't even want to touch this can of worms. I was chosen for military service when the last draft was in force. Didn't worry about it because I had no control over it.
Gennee
QuoteDidn't worry about it because I had no control over it.
I was chosen also but I did not let them take me. You do have control you just have to want to take charge of it. Letting things happen to you will end in unhappiness.
We may well be itching for a fight (and when exactly since before 1895 or so haven't we?) but we're not going to do it with people who don't want to be there.
Quote from: tekla on July 25, 2009, 08:22:18 PM
We may well be itching for a fight (and when exactly since before 1895 or so haven't we?) but we're not going to do it with people who don't want to be there.
you mean like about 1850 or so - mexican/american conflict resulting in the theft of half of all mexico.
Handing over some cash for something you stole doesn't count as a purchase.
Depends on who you ask.
Manifest Destiny...
Quote from: Rebis on July 25, 2009, 09:16:53 PM
you mean like about 1850 or so - mexican/american conflict resulting in the theft of half of all mexico.
Handing over some cash for something you stole doesn't count as a purchase.
yeah, but we waited until after they stole it from Spain, who stole it from the Aztecs, who stole it from the Mayans, and so on, and so on.
I had a thought that apparently Clueless Joe didn't consider.
Assuming females are drafted in equal number with males, the following problems will arise:
-Females tend to get injured more in basic training. This will be especially true in the Marine Corps, where women have to go through the same training as men.
-There will probably be more sexual harassment/misconduct issues arising from this. I'm not sure how you would remove the temptation...have an all-female unit? Sounds like reverse discrimination to me.
-There should also be a lot of lesbians joining up. Obviously, the military doesn't want gays because their leadership has been brainwashed into right-wing nonsense.
-Forcing women to serve in the military also raises issues of fairness. I'm sure there are a lot of women out there who wouldn't be prepared/willing to serve and wouldn't be physically fit, so the chance of a washout increases.
-Over time, more women in the military means more female leadership. I'm not sure if the military would feel comfortable having female generals and such running around.
Forcible service in the military in 2009 would be a public relations nightmare...
Females are already generals and none of the problems you state are stopping them from doing combat missions. There is enough incentive to keep a good volunteer military for a long time females included. Males that do not want to be drafted cause just as much problems.
Quote from: lisagurl on July 31, 2009, 08:08:06 PM
Females are already generals and none of the problems you state are stopping them from doing combat missions. There is enough incentive to keep a good volunteer military for a long time females included. Males that do not want to be drafted cause just as much problems.
If you look at it closely, you'll see that female leadership seems like a "token"- as in, things that happen which are nice to talk about.
In terms of the ratio of male leaders to female leaders, it's still a man's military. The draft would change that...or raise complaints that women are volunteers while men are not...which opens a completely different can of worms.
Here's an example of what I mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_four-star_officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_four-star_officers)
Also, as an aside, I've never heard of a woman serving on the Joint Chiefs, have you?
QuoteAlso, as an aside, I've never heard of a woman serving on the Joint Chiefs, have you?
Has a women become president yet? It is not a lack of ability but a corrupt system that discriminates.
Quote from: lisagurl on August 01, 2009, 09:02:16 AM
Has a women become president yet? It is not a lack of ability but a corrupt system that discriminates.
I firmly believe that Hillary would have won if Obama hadn't run.
I am thankful that Hillary did not win.
As to the Draft, not in the near future.
Quote from: lisagurl on August 01, 2009, 09:02:16 AM
Has a women become president yet? It is not a lack of ability but a corrupt system that discriminates.
Iceland had a woman president for years and currently has a lesbian as prime minister.
Quote from: Kara on August 01, 2009, 10:27:00 AM
I firmly believe that Hillary would have won if Obama hadn't run.
I'm glad she didn't, nothing personal but I think she's crazy.
Quote from: Miniar on August 01, 2009, 02:09:24 PM
Iceland had a woman president for years and currently has a lesbian as prime minister.
Probably won't see that in the states for many more years, as lisa pointed out, we're a system that discriminates too much.
As far as the draft is concerned, I've got a list of reasons they don't want me, so if it does happen I'm all set.
I firmly believe that Hillary would have won if Obama hadn't run.
No doubt that the R's handed it to the D's for a change, Hill would have done it, had she not been on record voting for the war, within the party, that was the deal, not her sex.