These are questions that resound for the last three years not only in the political arenas but also in the lower level ones. After the introduction of a bill to reinstate the military draft by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) on January 7, 2003, rumours went out on the real reach of this measure. A little over a year after, another bill, this time by Representative Tim Johnson, announced on October 5, 2004, that the House defeated a bill that would have reinstated the military draft. H.R. 163 was introduced by and would have required 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 defence1.
Detractors of H.R. 163 argued that too many have already lost their lives at the battle field and the Vietnam issue became a recurrent double edged argument. However, it has to be understood and taken into account that the USA are involved in several campaigns all over the world to guarantee freedom and Human Rights where otherwise would be rotten to the core. In addition to this, the military draft should be assumed not as a punishment or backward movement, more proper of a reactionary society than of a leading and modern one, but as a different solution for daily concerns.
The United States has employed conscription from time to time. Per instance, in 1863 the imposition of a draft during the Civil War touched off the New York Draft Riots. Enlistment was next used after the United States entered World War I in 1917. The first peacetime call up came with the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Active conscription ("the draft") ended in 1973. Currently, male U.S. citizens, if aged eighteen through twenty five, are required to register with the