Can Trannys be drafted?

[bat1]

a draft is coming!


A mandatory draft is coming and it will come soon. Make no mistake about it. If you have a 'specialty' field such as health care worker or even computer skills (such as a degree in computer science), you could be 'drafted' into government service up to the age limit of 44 years old. You will have no choice in the matter as the Presidential Executive Order has already been signed and has become the "law", without the messy annoyance of congressional voting or debate, of course. The new age limit of conscription will also be pushed up to 36 years (update: June 2006. now changed to 42 years ) of age, not 26 years as was the traditional limit. They have now tied in Selective Service Registration with applying for a driver's licence in some 34 states so far.

One of the articles below touches on staying out of the military based on a claim of Conscientious Objector, but you should explore every possible idea to stay out of the Meat Grinder, not just this traditional technique. Once you're in the military, you're in and you can't do a damn thing about. It's a lot harder to get out or avoid being shot once you're standing on foreign soil wearing your battle gear and your spiffy Nazi style steel helmet taking orders from Sargeant Gung Ho. Even if you register as a Conscientious Objector, you've still registered. They have your name and all your other vital info in order to seek you out. You also need to explore your avoidance options BEFORE they pull off another staged 'terrorist' attack and close the borders and airports.

I voluntarily joined the military many years ago and thought it was the right thing to do. I felt good about it and told others that it was a good way to grow up and see the world. At the time, of course, I thought that the government was legit, that the U.S. was the "good guy" of the world, and that we were 'maintaining the peace' and preventing the spread of communism and all of that brainwashing crap that they keep feeding us, generation after generation. Now I know better. The government is in the hands of satanic, globalist traitors who are following a script to destroy America and its people (from within & without), in order to decimate the only country remaining that could (or would) offer any real opposition to the one world government takeover.

You have to be careful when visiting government web sites from your home computer. They undoubtedly keep record of anyone who visits their sites. If you are a person looking to avoid the draft, you are notifying them that you are interested in this topic, along with your computer ID, etc. Even the Conscientious Objector web sites listed below may be covert operations to gather information on draft resisters. One has no way of knowing for sure, so it's better to go to a library or Internet cafe to visit these sites, or use the home computer of a person who is beyond draft age.

In any event, if you want info sent to you via snail mail, use the PO Box of a business person or of an older friend, but don't send anyone your real name and home address. Please remember, if you list your Social Security number or date of birth, along with your name and address on any sort of application, rental lease, driver's licence, school registration, doctor's office, etc., the government can find you in a micro second. All such computers are tied into big government data collecting computers. Use a PO Box and voice mail number for contact on every form you fill out (don't use your real home address to get a PO Box either. If necessary, find someone who already has a PO Box, and add your name to it). If they insist on a home address, pre-arrange to use the address of a friend or the parents of your friend, or better yet, use your imagination.

[Alyssa87]

unless something has changed about eligibility since 2006- i say no.
a recruiter was @ my high school senior year… i hadn’t had my name changed yet.
I was called to meet with him, and i guess no one warned him about the tranny of the school.
As soon as he saw me, he really nervously said that he wouldn’t need to have the sit down with me because transgender people cannot be considered for the armed services anyhow. 8)

[Alyssa87]

he actually didnt say transgender.
he said 'people in your situation' (with an emphatic gesture)

[Supai]

he actually didnt say transgender.
he said 'people in your situation' (with an emphatic gesture)

More or less the same here, but they seeked me out a good 3 years after I had graduated. Asked if they could come over and I said sure. Was living with my father at the time so they had a fun time looking at his military paraphernalia and we chatted for a good time after that (pretty much everyone in my family has served).

[lilly_exohexoh]

i fcuking hope not. i've served all i can. i was in military school and that was the worst.

[lpell]

Yeah ,when the wind blows there skirt up.

[crinkle]

i fcuking hope not. i've served all i can. i was in military school and that was the worst.

I'm sure there are a few guys here Lilly who would love to serve you. Beautiful!

[bat1]

2008

A senior Republican lawmaker said Tuesday that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.

Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.

The US-led military coalition was put under further strain by the announcement this week by coalition members Spain and Honduras that they would withdraw their military contingents from Iraq.

Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops.

"I think it's clear that pressures in Iraq have reached the boiling point," said Samuel Berger, national security adviser during the Bill Clinton administration, who called for an increase in troops there, and a "genuine, non-grudging effort to internationalize the enterprise in Iraq, both military and civilian."

"We've got to be prepared to give up our hammerlock on decision making in exchange for genuine burden sharing."

Richard Perle, a former White House adviser who currently serves as a fellow at a conservative think tank, advised against adding troops or extending the date of handover of Iraqi sovereignty beyond the currently-set June 30 date.

"It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said.

Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum."

"A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said.

"It would discourage the assumption of sovereignty by Iraqis themselves. It would drain resources urgently needed for the development of Iraq's economy," Perle said.

A senior Democrat meanwhile, lashed out at the White House for failing to send a top administration official to appear before the panel.

"I think it is outrageous that the administration has not provided every witness we've asked for," said Senator Joseph Biden, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee.

"The fact that they are not prepared to send a witness means that they are either totally incompetent and they don't have anything to tell us ... or they're refusing to allow us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility" of congressional oversight, Biden said.

The committee's Republican chairman, Richard Lugar, also slammed the White House for "inadequate planning and communication related to Iraq."

[chefmike]

You are an idiot...there is no draft coming...you couldn't have possibly served in the military...maybe the boy scouts...

[chefmike]

A mandatory draft is coming and it will come soon. Make no mistake about it. If you have a 'specialty' field such as health care worker or even computer skills (such as a degree in computer science), you could be 'drafted' into government service up to the age limit of 44 years old. You will have no choice in the matter as the Presidential Executive Order has already been signed and has become the "law", without the messy annoyance of congressional voting or debate, of course. The new age limit of conscription will also be pushed up to 36 years (update: June 2006. now changed to 42 years ) of age, not 26 years as was the traditional limit. They have now tied in Selective Service Registration with applying for a driver's licence in some 34 states so far.

LMFAO...where did you find that BS that you posted, zippy? I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at it though, since it was posted by an LA airhead(that would be you) who is also admittedly a scientology simpleton...what a jackass... :roll:

[chefmike]

Now I know better. The government is in the hands of satanic, globalist traitors who are following a script to destroy America and its people (from within & without), in order to decimate the only country remaining that could (or would) offer any real opposition to the one world government takeover.

Here we go...break out your tinfoil hats, folks...

[bat1]

You are an idiot...there is no draft coming...you couldn't have possibly served in the military...maybe the boy scouts...

what does the draft have to do with me serving in the military?
:roll: So what do you know?

you always seem to know it all LOL!

btw..I'm on active duty right now at Fort Hood
been to IRAQ 4 times already been in the Army 19 YEARS now
and you?

[chefmike]

I am a Navy veteran and it's obvious to me and probably any other veterans, or rational human beings for that matter, who have read your threads that you probably just started shaving, dipshit...you are the schmuck who started a thread about buying a gun because he was intimidated by panhandlers...LMFAO!

[chefmike]

BWAAAHAAHAHA!!


http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=456677&highlight=#456677

[wjcdiver]

Its not happening. The military wants no part of the draft. They remember all the fun they had in Nam.

The military is pretty committed to an all volunteer force.

[RMan1]

Can trannys be drafted? No. Ever hear of "Don't ask, Don't tell", what could be a more obvious way of telling?

[Hostile]

Thats a great way to lose a war, draft TS girls who sleep till 6pm and without being able selling sex for money, most are useless wastes of air. Iran and Iraq would laugh at that shit.

[chefmike]

No one is getting drafted...

[chefmike]

And Iraq and Iran are already laughing at us...along with the rest of the world...

[El Nino]

Good post Bat1... they certainly are moving full steam ahead with this program.

[chefmike]

Good post Bat1... they certainly are moving full steam ahead with this program.

Where is your proof and who are your sources?

Just the facts, please.

[blacktgirls]

I am a Navy veteran :lol:

[chefmike]

Thanks for putting in your moronic two cents, blackcockworshipper.

[El Nino]

Bat1's intro paragraph is based on fact... you must extrapolate and interpret the executive orders Mike

[chefmike]

Good post Bat1... they certainly are moving full steam ahead with this program.

The reinstatement of the draft isn't exactly a new rumor..although we have had a so-called "back-door" draft since the neocon folly in Iraq started...just ask any of those serving in the military or national guard called back for their second or third tour...

Debunking the Myths: Getting the Draft Story Straight

Numerous myths and conjectures have been floating around over the internet and airwaves regarding the possibility of a draft. While there are plenty of reasons to believe that a draft is a real possibility, let’s make sure the debate is based on credible information.

Myth #1: Draft legislation pending in Congress
One of the most misunderstood and misrepresented aspects of the draft debate has been the legislation that was, until recently, lying dormant in Congress. Internet rumors have routinely cited this legislation as evidence that a draft is around the corner. More recently, some politicians have tried to convince people that a vote against this bill means that a draft is out of the question. So, let's set the record straight.


Early in 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced HR163, "The Universal National Service Act of 2003." Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) introduced a companion bill of the same name. The legislation called for all citizens and residents of the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, male and female, to perform a two-year period of national service, either in the military/reserves or in a civilian capacity that would promote the "national defense."


Congressman Rangel introduced the bill in order to try to address seriousconcerns about the inequities that lead to a disproportionate number of African Americans and poor people fighting and dying on the country's behalf. He also hoped that lawmakers would be less eager to support a war in Iraq if their own children and grandchildren were vulnerable to a draft. However, not only did the bill not stop the war, but it also failed to spark any significant dialogue--at least in Congress-- about how to address concerns that an unfair burden has been placed on a small number of people, many of whom come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. In fact, the legislation had only a handful of sponsors and was never brought up for debate or a vote in committee.


On October 5, 2004, the House leadership suddenly decided to call up the Rangel bill for a floor vote, bypassing the normal committee process. Using an obscure procedure that is normally reserved for non-controversial items (such as the naming of post offices), the House held a forty minute debate and then voted down the bill 402-2. The Republicans accused the Democrats of using the draft issue for partisan purposes and said that they were bringing a vote on the bill in order to put to rest rumors that were circulating on the internet. The Democrats accused the Republicans of making a mockery of the legislative process by calling a vote on a bill they did not support merely to make a political statement. Congressman Rangel, himself, voted against the bill, protesting the use of the vote for what he called purely partisan political purposes and expressing frustration that there was no genuine dialogue on the relevant issues.


In the end, the vote on the bill actually served to create more buzz around the draft issue, rather than putting the issue to rest. Furthermore, the vote against the bill still did nothing to address the real underlying reasons that a draft is a serious concern: the severe strain on the Army and Marines, the military's increasing difficulties with retention and recruitment of troops, and the lack of capacity to meet current and future force requirements.

Myth #2: The DoD is reconstituting draft boards in preparation for a draft
Actually, the Department of Defense (DoD) does not manage draft boards. That comes under the purview of the Selective Service System (SSS), which is an independent agency. The draft boards that exist around the country were created in 1980 when President Carter re-instituted draft registration. People on those boards were to serve a twenty-year term. For the past few years, the Selective Service has been trying to replace board members whose terms have expired.

The DoD did post a notice on its website for a few days last year suggesting that people join draft boards. While this may qualify as a public relations blunder, it does not necessarily mean that the DoD is making special preparations for an imminent draft.

For the record, not only is the DoD not in charge of filling draft boards, but military members and retirees are not allowed to serve on draft boards. There are about 350 members of the National Guard and reserves who perform their duty with the national Selective Service System (not as members of draft boards). These reservists would shift over to active duty and work full-time to enhance the capacity of the civilian administration of the SSS should a draft be authorized by Congress.

Myth #3: Special Selective Service report to the President
Another rumor in the mill is that the Selective Service System delivered a special report to the President announcing that the SSS would be prepared to implement a draft by the spring of 2005. In fact, each year the Selective Service submits an annual plan and an annual report. And each year the Selective Service says that it will be ready to implement a draft—that’s what it is supposed to say, because being prepared for a draft is its job. If it delivered a report saying it wasn’t ready for a draft, the SSS would not be fulfilling its mandate and would be at increased risk of losing its funding, a legitimate concern given that Congress has moved to do away with the SSS in the past.

Myth #4: $28 million extra for the Selective Service
Rumors abound that Congress recently gave the Selective Service System an additional $28 million to step up its preparations for a draft. False. In fact, the Selective Service requested $28,290,000 for its regular annual operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, which would have represented roughly a $2 million increase over the previous year’s budget. According to the SSS, “This ‘mark-up’ included the funds necessary to support the President’s Management Agenda initiatives, to increase automation security, and to procure and deploy an integrated financial management system” to SSS FY03 Annual Report). However, lawmakers did not approve the increase but instead chose to retain the same level of funding that the SSS received in FY03. By the time the SSS FY04 budget was finally approved, it was down to $26,100,000. Alas, there was no special additional funding of $28 million approved for the SSS and the funding for FY05 is expected to be the same as, or lower than, this year’s funding.

Additional Resources:

The Center on Conscience and War
Selective Service System website
Thomas Legislative information on Library of Congress website.
Other AFS Briefings on the Draft Issue

http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/myths

[chefmike]

Bat1's intro paragraph is based on fact... you must extrapolate and interpret the executive orders Mike

Where are your facts?

Who are your sources?

[Nowhere]

You know, I could see the OP's arguments years ago, but EVERYONE wants us out of Iraq.

Virtually everyone sees this as a war of lies and no one is going to die for it.

Even most of the military agree, but they are simply fulfilling their duty.

Institute a draft and you will see all hell break loose before a single person goes over there (unwillingly).

I know I'd only step foot over there after both of Bush's daughters and the every child of every congressman who got us in this mess were deployed in front-line duties.

This is THEIR war and THEIR mess, and THEY should be held to the fire to clean it up, not me.

[hippifried]

There's not going to be a draft. There's been no executive order. Wouldn't matter anyway, because only Congress can raise armies. It doesn't matter what any "senior republican" or any other republican says, because the republicans aren't in control. Nobody cares what Chuck Hagl has to say. Richard Lugar doesn't chair any committee.

Nice April fool's joke.

Anyway... In the event of a draft: These days, it would probably end up being unisex. The boll wevil democrats defected to the republicans after the '94 debacle, so the "don't ask don't tell" policy & the homosexual ban in the military will probably be dropped after the Whitehouse changes hands. But it doesn't matter. There won't be a need for a draft because we'll be pulling out of Iraq anyway, as soon as the new democrat takes the oath.

[Trogdor]

Doubt there's gonna be a draft.....and even if there is, and they drag to over there, I'll be the first deserter, dressed as a women, with a ticket to sweden. :P

My question is, what is the smeggin' point of the selective service crap anyhow?

[Wombat]

Clinger couldn't get home... :lol:

[peggygee]

Interesting scenario for me....

I'm a bit past the age of conscription, and have previously served in the
militiary.

I am also post-op.

If I were deployed in my career field, I would consider reenlisting.

By no means do I always agree with the policies of my government, but
I would protect and serve my country.