Do Draft Boards Exist Now?

[adios]

I really don't know. After seeing the thread on the draft it brought this question to mind.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think so, but then again, I don't even really know what they are.

[adios]

I think they do and that surprises me but I guess it shouldn't. Here's a couple of links. For instance during the Vietnam war your draft board more or less decided whether or not you would get a deferment as a Concientious Objector (CO). If memory serves people would look for locations where draft boards were sympathetic to CO deferment applicants.

Rumors of draft persist despite denials, failed bills (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/109670974069310.xml)

This article won't make draft eligible posters at all happy methinks:

A Draft in the Forecast? (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11052003.html)

Check out this supposed call for staffing of Selective Service draft boards:

Defense Department Deletes Notice About Draft Boards (http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/draft-boards.htm)

[ThaSaltCracka]

This is the one thing that scares me about Bush to be honest with you. Its to much to discuss right now, and probably the wrong forum too, but damn, a draft really scares me. Not just for my safety, but for everyone else my age. It also scares me because I want to ask "why are we gonna need a draft?". The answer to that I am not sure I want to know.

[adios]

Keep what I stated about getting CO status in mind. Every action should be toward that end, for instance don't put something in the public domain that would comprise that status that you could be associated with. I doubt if the draft is coming back though but yes it's a topic for the other forum.

[Neil Stevens]

I hope you really won't worry.

No matter what you think of the President, know that he and his people are convinced that an professional, all-volunteer* army is stronger and better-equipped to achieve their goals than a bunch of conscripts would be.

So no matter how many countries President Bush wants to send troops to, it's highly unlikely that we'd see him sign a draft bill.

And besides that, we know that the House of Represenatives will change very, very little this November, and it shows even less chance of passing a draft bill.

It just cannot happen in our political climate, so relax!

* I am opposed to stop-loss orders, but I don't think it's fair to call them a "back-door draft." They are beside this point, anyway.

[ThaSaltCracka]

if Bush is reelected, he has little to lose politically if he calls for a draft.

[daryn]

aren't the democrats actually the one's proposing these draft bills?


this is wicked stupid. i see people just totally overreacting, playing into the fear of a draft. it's just a rumor!

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah one of the people bringing it forward in the house is a democrat. There is also a bill in the senate, not sure who is bringing that forward though.

rumors are based on something though.

[Victor]

the draft bill was started by democrats in Congress. A very very devious plan to say the least. They wanted to say, "Look, with Bush in power there might be a draft." Super Super shady.

There public reason was that they felt it was unfair that lower class citizens were bearing the brunt of the war in the front lines and felt that rich folks should assume just as much of the work.

[BonJoviJones]

[ QUOTE ]
rumors are based on something though.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of people have told me that isn't the case.

[jcx]

If you are worried about the draft don't vote for Kerry. It has a much greater chance of happening under his administration. One of the main reasons is the majority of the military can't stand the man and will not re-enlist. Anyone who thinks Kerry will withdraw our troops from Iraq is kidding themselves - Kerry is a Globalist just like Bush. Those troops will have to come from somewhere.

[Neil Stevens]

Perhaps, but he has shown zero INTEREST in a draft. If he ever showed interest, and were held back for political reasons, it'd be one thing. He hasn't, though.

And even if President Bush personally would have little to lose from a draft, his cabinet and his fellow party members in the Congress would. They will face the voters in 2006, and some have Presidential aspirations for 2008.

And don't forget, the Congress did just prove that it can't pass a draft bill. The President can't sign a bill that Congress can't send him.

So really, the Sonics and Seahawks should be bigger concerns of yours than a draft.

[ThaSaltCracka]

how old are you?

[Neil Stevens]

26, and I have a brother who's 17.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
26, and I have a brother who's 17.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should really be more concerned about this than you are, and thats all I am saying.

[SomethingClever]

What is the maximum age to be eligible for a draft?

I'm 104, I'm just asking out of curiosity.

[Neil Stevens]

Selective service runs 18-25.

[craig r]

But that is just selective service. I am sure if needed they would draft over 25. It has been done in the past.

[Neil Stevens]

Yes.. if a draft bill were passed, the Congress might set new parameters.

The selective service registration is all that exists today, though.

[vulturesrow]

TSC,

Seriously, the other poster was correct. It would be a better use of your time to worry about the Mariners and the Sonics than a draft. It'll never happen unless the rest of the world gangs up and attacks us. Even then, I doubt it. Chill man.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the maximum age to be eligible for a draft?

I'm 104, I'm just asking out of curiosity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the way the SS system is set up 20-25 year olds would be drafted 1st, then 18 & 19 year olds when the supply of 20-25er's was extinguished. But FWIW, my Grandfather was 34 when drafted for WWII. Guess it depends on the need for able bodied men.