New draft details:"absolutely no deferments"

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 09-28-2004 06:15 PM

The Voice Of The White House 9-25-4

An article quoting a white house press corps reporter
who was able to read a Pentagon memo concerning the
forthcoming draft. Example quote: "As I read it, an 18
year old girl with two children and no husband to
support her will be subject to the draft. There was a
discussion about what to do with the children and if the
family cannot raise them during the draftee's tour of
duty, then some kind of Federal Child Care center will
have to suffice." Another example quote: "The White
House and the Pentagon have worked out a plan to call up
all reservists and National Guard units if and when Bush
is reelected. The moment that the election results are
poured in concrete, orders, now drawn up and waiting,
will be issued throughout the United States. I am not
speaking of a few units but ALL US Guard and Reserve
units. On the same subject, the pending Universal Draft
is also a done deal. Everything is place awaiting the
President's signature. This is planned for June of 2005
and contains some real shockers. Women will be called up
as well as men. There will be absolutely no deferments
of any kind permitted. Persons with medical problems
such as diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, chronic
asthma, physical deformities such as a club foot or
hunch back, vision problems, etc. will be called up!"

http://rense.com/general57/thevoiceofthewhitehouse.htm
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1103.htm
http://www.blatanttruth.org/alert.htm

TABwebmaster · Post by **TABwebmaster** » 09-29-2004 06:19 AM

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 09-29-2004 09:02 PM

TABwebmaster wrote:

You got that right..pretty scary!

CaptainBeyond · Post by **CaptainBeyond** » 09-29-2004 09:16 PM

Sounds like civil unrest is coming!

{:-)

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 09-30-2004 09:37 PM

Uh-oh now the shoe has been placed on "the other" foot....

"Democrats, Not Bush Admin, Behind Draft Legislation & Fears"

http://rense.com/general57/demo.htm

(I hopes its all b.s)

CaptainBeyond · Post by **CaptainBeyond** » 09-30-2004 09:50 PM

Hope it's not true!Correct me if I am wrong,but doesn't congress have to vote on any draft legislation?

{:-)

Dale O Sea · Post by **Dale O Sea** » 10-01-2004 12:46 AM

I heard Bush say in the debate tonight that the military will remain all volunteer...you can take that to the bank.

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 10-01-2004 01:28 PM

I'm not sure where I'll take that Dale, but it won't be to the bank.

Rombaldi · Post by **Rombaldi** » 10-01-2004 02:22 PM

dale65802 wrote: I heard Bush say in the debate tonight that the military will remain all volunteer...you can take that to the bank.

BCCI?

CaptainBeyond · Post by **CaptainBeyond** » 10-01-2004 05:31 PM

Well,like I said,the congress has to ratify any draft resolution,so as long as the Democrtats don't flip flop,it is a non issue,so all the draft scare about Bush is just scare tactics just as the old folk having their social security taken away,and school kids being starved at school.One more thing,THE SKY IS FALLING!!

{:-)

daboodaddy · Post by **daboodaddy** » 10-01-2004 05:34 PM

Sounds like civil unrest is coming!

IMO, thats what I think PAT Acts I & II are for, to be used against WE THE PEOPLE, rather than the terrorists.

CaptainBeyond · Post by **CaptainBeyond** » 10-01-2004 06:10 PM

Yep,if the draft happens,civil unrest will occur.Rest assured though that a draft will not occur without widespread support of the Democrats to get it voted through.So you see,it is merely a cheap scare tactic to scare the ignorant voters who do not know how our government works.The same thing applies to social security.How in the hell can the Republicans take away the social security of old folks without the help of Democrats?

It is really a non issue.It is merely a scare tactic to prey upon the ignorant and uninformed voter who are too lazy or stupid to look at the facts.Our founding fathers were very wise,and they put in place a very wise system of government.It takes a majority vote to pass any of this legislation,so look back to the accusers and their credibility regarding the facts of legislation.Ignorance will make you a slave of fear.Knowledge will liberate you.

{;-)

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 10-03-2004 03:36 PM

"Pentagon dismisses rumors of a new draft"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... rumors.htm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 10-04-2004 05:47 PM

I am in the Army and I can tell you this total bull. Before a Soldier can be Deployed he/she has to have a Back up plan to place her children it happens from the get go.....2yrs of service is not going to cause civil unrest.....and this is just my opinion if you do not love your country enough to serve her for a short time I would not want that person in the United States anyway especially in a fox hole watching my back

cosmicswirl · Post by **cosmicswirl** » 10-16-2004 08:59 AM

http://www.indybay.org/antiwar/

"10/5/2004: Rumors of a planned military draft for the year 2005 proved themselves to be a real threat today, as emails stating that the House of Representatives would vote on HR 163 without any discussion this evening began circulating this afternoon. The bill was, as expected, defeated. It would have required every U.S. citizen and every other person residing in the country between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of the reserves or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. The bill was defeated by a vote of 402-2.

Observers believe that H.R. 163 will be defeated because Republicans will not want to be seen as voting for a draft just before the Presidential Election. The bill was introduced by progressive democrat Charles Rangel, and co-sponsored by several other progressive representatives. Statement from Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Candidates Bush and Kerry have said that they do not want to institute a new draft. Another bill to watch out for, this time in the Senate: S 89, which would require "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 was referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. "