2004 Elections

[Phoenix]

2004 Elections

I thought we talked about the draft before and that it was highly unlikely and unneeded. I will have to search out that about article that we looked at last time.

 

[CaryP]

2004 Elections

If the NWO maintains control of the White House (and how could they lose it with two Bonesmen as the front runners of the election) we will have ongoing global war. In order to prosecute this plan a much larger army would be needed. It would be a political negative to be pushing a draft before the November elections. Sometime early next year, the president (won't matter who) will come out and say that in order to effectively fight the war on terror, a larger military is needed, and will push for a draft. This will probably follow another terrorist attack to make sure the public herds of sheeple will back a draft, and be willing to send their children, or at least other people's children off to war. But rest assured a military draft is coming. The timing of its announcement and publicity campaign are being carefully orchestrated. So believe what you want to believe. When you, your kids, your friends or people close to you get drafted for military service, you might wake up to the reality of where we're headed.

Cary

 

[Anoah]

2004 Elections

I dunno... perhaps they don't attack Switzerland for now because the Swiss hold their money. They aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them... at least, not yet. The time of the Swiss will come, just not until there isn't anyone to stand up and assist them. Then they will be swallowed whole.

Hmmm now that is just paranoid and freaky. The Swiss dont ###### everyone off and kill and destroy. They don't have a damn thing to worry about.

 

[Unintentional]

2004 Elections

Does converting gold stolen by the Nazis into acceptable currency, helping furnish Nazi Germany with weaponry (thus effectively prolonging the war), and refusing Jewish refugees at the border, sending them to death camps, and finally, adding insult to grievous injury, refusing holocaust survivors access to funds deposited in Swiss banks, make the Swiss neutral?

 

[Phoenix]

2004 Elections

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 7 2004, 06:26 AM
Does converting gold stolen by the Nazis into acceptable currency, helping furnish Nazi Germany with weaponry (thus effectively prolonging the war), and refusing Jewish refugees at the border, sending them to death camps, and finally, adding insult to grievous injury, refusing holocaust survivors access to funds deposited in Swiss banks, make the Swiss neutral?

​

The neutral always appear less than neutral to a person who has a strong opinion one way or another.

 

[karizma]

2004 Elections

The Draft:

Reinstate draft bill

H.R. 163 - S.89

"Universal National Service Act of 2003"

Title: 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.


**In February 2003 it was referred to subcommitee and that was all I have been able to find so far.**

 

[karizma]

2004 Elections

Message from the Selective Service Website www.sss.gov

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, 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. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25."

 

[karizma]

2004 Elections

Ok...I found this article on AmericanFreePress.net about the draft and I promise this will be the last of my "quotes" on the subject. I just wanted to throw a few opinions out there from different sources.

U.S. Draft in 2005
Actions Indicate Administration Has Plan To Reinstate Military Draft if Bush Re-Elected
By Mike Blair

A military draft may be reinstated by mid-2005 if President George W. Bush is re-elected in November. An appropriation of $28 million has been provided in the current defense budget to bring the nation?s Selective Service System up to speed, which many people believe will likely lead to a national draft of young men and women by June 15, 2005.

U.S. military professionals have told American Free Press that due to the Iraq war and large troop deployments in Korea and Europe, a manpower shortage in the armed forces has reached ?a state of critical mass.?

Neither Bush nor his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), would dare to push for reinstating the draft during an election year. The draft was ended in 1973. But many people believe Bush has put the machinery in place to begin a draft by June 15, 2005, which includes setting up and staffing local Selective Service boards throughout America.

The Pentagon has begun a program to fill 10,350 local draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board posts as soon as possible.

Last September, the Pentagon ran an ad for volunteers to fill the slots. But when it was reported in the news media, the ad was quietly pulled.

Registration for the draft ended in 1975. Under President Jimmy Carter, however, registration was reinstated for all men between the ages of 18 and 25 in 1980, in an amendment to the Military Selective Service Act.

Currently, legislation is pending in the House and Senate to renew the draft.

In the House there is H.R. 163, which was introduced last year by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). It was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and the House Subcommittee on Total Force.

H.R. 163 has 14 co-sponsors, including Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Donna M. Christensen (D-Va.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), James P. Moran (D-Va.), Fortney ?Pete? Stark (D-Calif.) Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), and Nydia M. Velazquez (D-N.Y.).

Most of those who have signed on to support the bill are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. However, Rangel and the bill?s co-sponsors contend, as Rangel puts it: ?Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country. For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.?

Rangel said primarily the poor and minorities are serving in Iraq, getting wounded and killed.

Under the bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26, the 20-year-olds being taken first, with exemptions to allow people to graduate from high school. But college students would have to serve, unlike during the Vietnam War, when attending college was a stay-home pass.

SHOULDER THE BURDEN

In the Senate a companion bill, S. 89, has been introduced by Sen. Ernest F. ?Fritz? Hollings (D-S.C.), which has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Said Hollings: ?We all share the benefits of life in America, and under this plan, we all help shoulder the burden of defending our freedoms. Our proposal ensures that all Americans answer the call of duty. High school students could be deferred until they graduate, but in no case will that deferment extend beyond the age of 20. As we fight this war on terrorism and protect our way of life, we must once again listen to the words of President John F. Kennedy, who implored us to ?ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country?.?

Army commanders in Iraq want more troops to combat the growing guerrilla war that is engulfing the country and causing daily deaths among U.S. troops.

Even Republican members of the Senate are beginning to talk about a draft being needed to fill manpower gaps.

?Why shouldn?t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?? said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. His comments came just after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 134,000 troops in Iraq.

Hagel said that restoring the draft would force ?our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.?

Only one Army division remains in the United States.

The continued deployment of the National Guard and Reserves has created a mass exodus of troops from their ranks.

For example, the Massachusetts National Guard?s recruiting was down 30 percent last year. Of Reserve and National Guard troops sent to Iraq, 46 percent said they had no intention of re-enlisting. This has not only resulted in a manpower crisis but a critical loss of talent for the Guard and Reserves.

Further angering National Guard and Reserve troops, the Bush administration has initiated what is referred to as a ?stop loss? program, which mandates that members of the Guard and Reserves cannot leave the military until 90 days after they have been deactivated.

?I just shudder to think what would happen if another war scenario pops up suddenly somewhere in the world, with a single division of regular troops remaining as reserves. We would be in big trouble, and I cannot emphasize enough how big ?big? is,? a retired Air Force officer told American Free Press.

Karizma

 

[Anoah]

2004 Elections

Does converting gold stolen by the Nazis into acceptable currency, helping furnish Nazi Germany with weaponry (thus effectively prolonging the war), and refusing Jewish refugees at the border, sending them to death camps, and finally, adding insult to grievous injury, refusing holocaust survivors access to funds deposited in Swiss banks, make the Swiss neutral?

Yeah that was like 50 plus years ago who cares.

 

[Phoenix]

2004 Elections

Ok,
I am going to do some quotes too karizma.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_d...=draft+military

Urban Legends and Folklore
Congress Is Planning to Reinstate the Military Draft?

Netlore Archive:? Email flier claims Congress is actively pursuing plans to increase funding of the Selective Service System and reinstate the military draft in the U.S. by 2005?

Description:? Email flier
Circulating since:? Feb 2004
Status:? Unlikely
Analysis:? See below?

Email text contributed by B. Hawkins, 3 June 2004:

FOR AGES 18-26. MEN AND WOMEN. NO COLLEGE EXEMPTIONS. THIS NEEDS TO BE CIRCULATED AROUND ASAP.

Subj: U.S. Military Draft expected to start June 15, 2005 - READ this
Date: 5/29/04 5:23:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Importance: High

Subject: Military Draft expected to start June 15, 2005

If there are children in your family, READ this.

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as 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.

See the following websites to view

Bills: http://www.hslda.org/legislation

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward, 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 implements, 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.

This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.

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 contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact 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: 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

WHAT TO DO:

>Tell all your friends!!!!!

>Contact your Senators & Reps and tell them to oppose these bills!!!

Comments: The following message is prominently displayed on the Website of the U.S. Selective Service System:
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, 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. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

Most knowledgeable observers put the chances of a reinstatement of the military draft in the near future at close to zero (see news sources below). As stated above, both the president and the secretary of defense have repeatedly said there is no present need for a draft. And although there are indeed two bills before Congress calling for a revival of some form of compulsory military service, both were introduced by Democrats with neither the interest nor the support of the current administration and have languished in committee for over a year with no action taken. No one expects anything to come of them, certainly not by 2005.

That said, the very existence of the bills proves there are those in Washington, D.C. who champion the idea, so the possibility of a revival (or attempted revival) of the military draft is certainly not out of the question longer range, especially if America's military commitments abroad continue to grow.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

Are Your Going to be Drafted?
From Rod Powers,
Your Guide to U.S. Military.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
What are the Chances of a Military Draft in the U.S.?
It seems that ever since the first Gulf War (1990), every other year or so, some nitwit in the House and/or Senate introduce a bill to re-instate the draft. The latest such idiocy came in the form of Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Both bills would require two years of military service (or community service for those who are medically unqualified) for every male and female in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 (more about the impossibility of this later).

Don't worry folks. Both bills were introduced in January 2003, and members of the House and Senate quickly referred them to committee, where they remain today (and will stay until they die a painless death).

However, I fully expect some other Congressmen and Senators will use the issue of the draft to get themselves on the Sunday morning talk shows before this legislative year is over. When that happens, traditionally, my email box becomes full of letters from concerned 18-year olds and parents, wondering whether they (or their kids) are going to be forced to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Is a draft likely? What exactly is \"the draft?\" Who is likely to be drafted? What happens during a draft?

Will a draft happen?

Almost certainly not, unless the United States gets involved in a major, major conflict (on the scale of World War II). Probably not even then, for several reasons.

Military Size and Needs. By law, each year Congress sets the maximum size of the active duty and reserve forces. They do this by passing the Military Authorization Act and Military Appropriations Act. Each year, Congress has the option to increase the authorized size of the military -- and they have chosen not to do so (exception -- last year -- in 2003 -- Congress authorized the Army to TEMPORARILY increase in size by 20,000 -- a drop in the bucket. This temporary increase in size is to help the Army through a planned reorganization, not because Congress wants to have a larger Army).

In order to meet the Congressionally-mandated size, the military needs to sign up a certain number of new recruits each year, and re-enlist a certain percentage of recruits already in. For the past several years, the services have been doing extremely well in both of these endeavors. Last year, the services turned away more recruits than they enlisted. Re-enlistments are at an all-time high. In fact, the Air Force found themselves in the embarrassing position of having too many troops this year (2004), and are actively encouraging several thousands to apply for early discharge. Recruiting is doing so well this year (2004), that new recruits, who are accepted, often have to wait six or seven months in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) in order for a \"slot\" to open up for them. For more info, see All Volunteer Force, Proven.

The state of our economy is only one reason for high recruiting/retention rates. Much more significant, in my opinion, is the way the media has portrayed our troops for the past fourteen or so years (since the first Gulf War). Unlike the Vietnam era, and years immediately following, where the media showcased our military troops in a negative fashion, today our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are portrayed as dedicated heroes (as well they should be). This has a noticeable effect on how our Nation's youth view military service. They turn on the news, or watch a movie (Saving Private Ryan, G.I. Jane, Top Gun, Blackhawk Down, etc., ad infinitum), and they see excitement and adventure. All the recruiting commercials in the World, and all the pay raises of the past ten years have had less of a positive effect on military recruiting, than has this shift in the way our troops have been percieved by the general public in recent years.

Page 2
Is our military too small? Certainly. Our active duty and reserve forces are being required to deploy (leave home) far more often than what is conducive to good morale (but, one certainly doesn't see this in the re-enlistment rates, which remain at an all-time high). Our military isn't too small because of a lack of volunteers -- it's too small because our elected officials do not wish to spend the money on a larger military force. However, with the current enlistment and re-enlistment rates, Congress could triple the size of our military, and a draft would still not be necessary. Remember, we're turning them away in droves -- things that wouldn't cause an \"eye-blink\" in the past, today require waivers to qualify, and -- as long as recruiting is going well, waiver approval is getting harder and harder to get.

Just by approving more waivers, DOD could still fill the ranks with sufficient volunteers, even if Congress tripled the size of the military.

In order for a draft to even be necessary, Congress would have to increase the size of our military by SEVERAL MILLION (which literally means several BILLIONS of dollars per year in personnel costs). That ain't likely to happen.

Recently, the Army announced they are recalling over 5,000 IRRs to active duty. As I said before, there is no doubt that our active duty forces (especially the Army) are not sufficient. However, the Army is not recalling these forces to active duty because they don't have enough volunteers. The Army is being forced to recall them because Congress has failed to act to significantly increase the authorized size of the active duty forces. Under the Presidential Call-up Authority, the Army can bring these reserve forces temporarily to active duty, without violating their Congressionally-mandated active duty strength ceilings.

If Congress would simply authorize the size of the Active Duty Army by about 200,000, recall of IRR would not be necessary, and the Army could easily fill these slots with the volunteer recruits which they are now forced to turn away at the recruiter's doors.

Training. For more than a quarter of a century, the United States Military has been an \"all volunteer\" service. During that time, the military has dramatically (and successfully!) changed the way it trains and the way it fights. In order to implement a draft, we would have to change the entire way the military trains and operates today. This would (in my opinion, and the opinion of senior military leaders) result in a much less effective military.

A draft is a good way to fight wars of 50 years ago. It is a lousy way to fight wars today. Today's military members are highly trained professionals. The days of giving a couple month's of training on firing a rifle and tossing a grenade, then sending men off to combat are long, long gone. In today's military, even the basic infantry is \"high tech.\" You don't train someone to operate and maintain highly sophisticated military equipment overnight. It takes a minimum of 18 months to 2 years to turn out a trained Soldier, Airman, Sailor, or Marine. It takes even longer than that for many military specialties.

In short, if we instituted a draft today, inductees would not be effective until about two years from now (at which time, their two year service commitment would be over).

Qualifications/Disqualifications. A significant problem with a draft is that Congress would have to repeal the \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" legislation which allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces, as long as they keep their sexual preferences secret. Under current rules, \"open\" homosexuals are not allowed to serve. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that anyone (especially today's \"youth\") who do not wish to serve would have no problems with claiming homosexuality in order to escape military service. (Note: Many people feel that \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" should be repealed anyway, but that's another topic).

For more than 20 years, each of the military services have come to rely upon the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) testing program to determine whether or not one has the aptitude to learn military jobs. If a draft were re-instituted, it would be far too easy for individuals who did not wish to serve to intentionally score low on this exam. The military would have no way of knowing which skills these individuals would be capable of learning. As I said, even today's infantry is \"high tech,\" and we have to have the ability to determine whether or not one even has the mental capability of succeeding before we waste thousands of taxpayers dollars to pay for the training.

In order to maintain a highly-trained, professional force, the military has tightened up enlistment standards during the past 30 years. No longer are judges allowed to tell someone, \"Join the military or go to jail\" (the military is not allowed to accept such applicants). Those with criminal offenses, even as juveniles, require a hard-to-get waiver.

Page 3
Those with a history of drug abuse (other than minor experimentation with marijuana) are ineligible for enlistment. There are hundreds of medical conditions (either current, or past history of) that render one ineligible to join our armed forces. Without a high school diploma or GED, one is ineligible to join, and -- only about 10 percent each year can have GEDs.

All of these increased standards, along with unsurpassed technology, have made the United States Military the most powerful military in the World (no other country's military even comes close). If we were to re-instate the draft, and the military was forced to accept everyone, regardless of criminal/drug/medical/test score qualifications, we would be larger, but much, much less effective. It's not numbers that count. It's training and technology.

Lock two people in a room the size of a football field, one armed with 100 rocks, and the other, an expert, professionally-trained and motivated sharpshooter, armed with a precision rifle and three rounds of ammunition. Who is likely to come out alive?

Mandatory Public Service. I often hear individuals state that everyone should serve a term in the U.S. Military. Such individuals feel it's possible to force someone to be patriotic (we proved this false during the Vietnam draft-era). While I personally think that a term of military service would benefit most of our youths, mandated military service or public service is not a good idea. The purpose of the military is to \"kill people and break things\" -- to be the best fighting force possible (there is nothing more useless than a second-best military). It's not the purpose of our armed forces to provide a \"learning experience,\" or \"maturing experience\" for our Nation's youth. If that's the goal, create some other kind of program -- but leave our Nation's defense out of it. You can't force patriotism on someone. Most military personnel I know would rather serve alongside someone who has volunteered to be there, not some small percentage of the population dragged there by threat of prison.

Police officers and firemen also perform an extremely valuable public service, and are necessary to the safety of our nation. So, why don't we consider drafting people, against their wills, to supplement those forces? Why do some of us feel its perfectly justified to conscript non-volunteers into our military, but not other areas of important public service? Would you want a non-volunteer patrolling the streets to protect you from crime, or responsible to try and save your burning house? Of course not. So why would one want a non-volunteer to fight our wars and protect our National Security?

Crunching the Numbers. Back to the two pieces of legislation I mention at the beginning of this article: Remember, both bills would require military service (or community service for those who don't medically qualify for military service) for everyone between the ages of 20 and 26. According to the Selective Service, there are currently 11 million men eligible for the draft in that age-range. However, both bills apply to women as well, so about 22 million would be required to serve. Keep in mind that these bills do not just require a portion of them to be drafted, they require everyone to serve.

With all due respect to the good senator and representative, they're full of it, and they know it. There is absolutely no way this country could afford a military with 22 million people serving. Rangel and Hollings introduced the legislation to make a political point (they are against the war in Iraq), not because they think the bills have any chance of passing. They can't pass, and the congressmen know it. Let's do some simple arithmetic:

For the sake of simpler mathematics, we'll assume that all 22 million \"draftees\" are serving in the grade of E-1 (the lowest enlisted grade). They won't be, of course, but it makes the math easier. An E-1 in today's military starts off with a base pay of $1193.40 per month. $1193.40 multiplied by 22 million comes to $26,254,800,000. That's a payroll of 26 BILLION dollars per month, just in the basic pay. Multiply that by 12, and it's a yearly payroll of $315,057,600,000 (315 BILLION dollars!).

Well, if we have a draft, we don't need to pay that much, right? Okay, assume we give these 22 million troops \"slave wages,\" and just pay them $500 per month. That would still equal a base-pay expense of $12,500,000,000 (12 BILLION dollars) per month, or $150,000,000,000 (150 BILLION dollars) per year.

Let's not forget that we have to feed these troops. It costs the military about $150 per month to feed an enlisted member (assuming they eat all meals in the chow hall). So, we'll have to add $39,600,000,000 (39 BILLION dollars) to our annual military budget for food.

Page 4
Where are all these people going to live? Are we going to build new barracks for all of them (About two or three million dollars per building)? What about those with spouses and children? Are we going to pay them a housing allowance so they can afford rent, or allow those children to live in the streets? Right now, we give married military members a housing allowance that (depending on location) averages about $500 per month. Assume that only 30% of those 22 million (6.6 million) have families. That's a housing budget of at least $3,300,000,000 per month.

Now add the costs for uniforms, equipment, training, relocation expenses, etc. Give me a break. This just ain 't gonna happen, folks. We can barely afford our current force-levels of about 1.5 million members on active duty.

Our country does not need a draft.

We have a million and a half highly trained, professional Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines currently on active duty. Additionally, we have 1.3 million in the Guard and Reserves. Together, these 2.8 million \"all volunteer\" professionals can handle any foreseeable military conflict. Also, let's not forget the millions in the inactive reserves, or the millions of military retirees who, by law, can be recalled to active duty at any time.

The Selective Service has issued the following official statement concerning the likelihood of a draft:
The Selective Service System remains in a standby, caretaker status. On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, in response to a question about the draft, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated that there was \"not a chance\" of reinstituting the draft. According to Rumsfeld, the military is successful in attracting and retaining talented people in sufficient numbers.

It would take legislative action by the Congress and implementation by the President to reinstate a draft in an emergency.

The Selective Service System, like all Federal agencies, is ready to accomplish its missions. While no heightened measures have been undertaken to bring the Nation closer to reestablishing conscription, young men are reminded that they are still required by existing Federal law to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Late registrations are accepted, but not if a man is 26 years old or older. .
There are several web sites out there with the intented purpose of trying to convince you that a draft is coming. Many of these quote \"reliable sources,\" (without proof), and some of them post outright lies. For example, I've read on several sites that (as proof that a draft is coming) that the Selective Service has received a $28 Million increase in funding. Simply not true (not even close to true).

The Selective Service must evaluate its effectiveness every year and report on it (to Congress) to obtain funding. Every Government agency must do this. One of the things Selective Service must report on is the status of local draft, and how they will use their allocated funds to improve efficiency. They've been doing this every year for the past 24 years! THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

In Fiscal Year 2004, the Selective Service received $26.1 Million for its annual operating budget. Some web sites have misquoted this as a $28 Million INCREASE, where -- in fact -- what they actually received ($26.1 Million) is just a small increase over what they received the year before (didn't even match the inflation rate).

Another thing I've read on certain web sites (again, as \"proof\" the draft is coming) is that the Selective Service put up an \"advertisement\" on a government web site, asking for volunteers to serve on local draft boards. Guess what? The Selective Service recruits and trains new draft board members each and every year. They've been doing this now, every year, for 24 years!

No, don't expect the initiation of a draft, anytime soon. It ain 't gonna happen.