PDA

View Full Version : Universal National Service Act Of 2003



locustfurnace
10-01-2004, 10:14 AM
Look like the USA will be forcing everyone to take part in military services. This used to be an option, to join the military or not. but looks as though that option will no longer apply.
Unsure if this is/was a proposal or something that has passed into congress.
This must be another result of the Homeland Security.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...@@L&summ2=m&%29 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&%29)

H.R.163
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.


SUMMARY AS OF:
1/7/2003--Introduced.

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

Jaime Andrés
10-01-2004, 12:34 PM
locustfurnace wrote
Look like the USA will be forcing everyone to take part in military services.

Conscripted forces will always be inferior to professional soldiers,sailors and airmen.
One of the reasons for the swift success in the two latest Gulf wars was that the majority of Iraqi forces were conscripted and did not want to fight.
Here in Spain we have recently stopped conscription and moved to properly paid professional armed services. Re-introducing conscription must be a retrograde step.

Pete
10-01-2004, 05:28 PM
Read your source:

Originally posted by http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&%29
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. It's been pending comment from the DOD for almost 20 months. It'll probably sit there until it dies (if it's not already dead).

The DOD doesn't want draftees. The Generals are very happy with the professional force. Officers who are old enough to remember the draft, do not remember it fondly.

Wouldn't you prefer employees who asked for their jobs, over a workforce that wants to get fired?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OT:
There are some liberal politicians who keep bringing this up on the pretext of getting the sons of the rich and powerful on the front lines if there's a war. They seem to forget that it doesn't work that way (or perhaps they think the voters are too dumb to figure it out).

The sons of the rich and powerful go to college and can become officers. If they don't want to be on the front lines, they can chose a non-combat military occupational specialty.

BTW: Did you notice who sponsored the bill? He's famous for stirring up class warfare issues.