Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

Originally Posted by jcgrrnm

Tho not in the featured news article, Rangel is claiming that the volunteer force relies too heavily on the poor and minorities. Funny, in the Vietnam era and subsequent Presidential races, the arguement was that with the draft guys like Bush and Quayle could seek preferment in the National Guard or guys like Clinton could hide out at Oxford; the grunts doing the fighting were (you guessed it) the poor and minorities. Now it looks like Rangel wants to give even more opportunities to sidestep combat, by adding in hospital work or other VISTA-type service to the alternatives. 7960 has the anatomical analysis just right.

Welcome aboard! How'd you find out about us?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're kidding right? You want everyone up to age 42 to be eligble for the draft?

Nope, not kidding.

Though we should rely on our regular volunteer force for most things. Things like if we needed to send 5,000 soldiers to go take care of Darfur. If there is a major war we feel necessary that is the best way to determine whether we truly feel it. It will get rid of the people who stand around in nebraska talking a bunch of shit how we need to go in some place to regulate, but as soon as you ask them why they aren't going they make excuses.

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're kidding right? You want everyone up to age 42 to be eligble for the draft?

Even if the draft rules were changed it wouldn't affect anything unless it was WWIII. The military option will still be on the table for any situation whether it be Iran or North Korea.
Military leaders, the majority of congress and the administration have all denied a need for the draft... and military recruiting quotas are being made. Why Rangel wants to draw such negative attention to himself is beyond me. When is he up for reelection? First he publicly disses Mississippi and now this.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree with him and hope it goes through. It will definitely be the most effective "check" on whether to go to war or not, and whether the war is truly neccessary.

Not to mention 18-21 year olds would suddenly start voting in droves.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ethyl

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com

This guy really needs to give it up.



Is this an attempt to make a political statement or does he actually want this to pass? I'm sure his party is glad he didn't do this before the elections.

This is nothing new for Rangel, he's been saying that the draft should be reinstated for years. Personally, I agree with him. I'll guarantee you that about 1/2 of the "chicken hawks" who like to wave the flag and claim that they "support our troops" would shut right up, especially if they were of draft age. And he's right, we wouldn't just rush to war unless it was a last resort. I don't believe a mercenary force is working, not when you have reserve and national guard people doing their second and third tours of Iraq. At least that didn't happen in Vietnam, you did one twelve-month tour and that was it. There will come a time,when the economy starts generating higher paying jobs for young people, that recruitment will drop through the floor. Then what?Too bad Rush and Hannity are a little too old, they could be first in line.
They know how to talk the talk, let's see 'em walk the walk!

Even though I believe that all of the above is true, I think this IS a political statement by Rangel. It won't pass Congress because not nearly enough people on either side of the isle support it. Nevertheless, I think it is the right thing to do. If one supports a war, they should be willing to serve their country. Especially when some of the most adamant supporters of THIS war are crying about taxes. The least they can do is pay taxes to pay for the war they support, and they even whine about that. A draft would give them a badly needed attitude adjustment.

[thatguyoverthere]

Where are the "I want us to win in Iraq at all costs" people? All I see are pussies who shudder at the thought of more Americans having to bear the cost of war.

You don't want us to "cut and run" - you don't want the significant amount of troops that need to be added to win Iraq either. I hate to tell you this, but the only other option ("staying the course" with the current amount of troop levels) has not been putting us on the path to victory.

You guys that support the war, and claim that you want us to win over there are so full of shit, and this thread proves it.

You're cowards who want to win at all costs, just as long as YOU'RE not the one that has to bear the cost. You value your physical safety and tax dollars over getting serious and trying to win in Iraq. You don't have the intestinal fortitude to support what needs to be done if you're serious about wanting to win this war.

Rangel is right. If we all shared the burden of war, maybe we'd be a little more careful the next time we rushed into a preventative, preemptive war built on flimsy cherry picked evidence.

It's sad that only Rangel has balls, and the war supporters are whiny little babies who prefer to drive from the backseat.

[DosEquis]

[ethyl]

Rangel's bill is just an embarrassment to himself. There's no point since today's wars do not require drafts unless, like I said, it's WWIII. Having the military option on the table is a MUST for foreign policy.... otherwise being the lone hyperpower in the world is useless. Rangel would end up removing that bargaining chip if he could.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Not to mention 18-21 year olds would suddenly start voting in droves.

why would the right-leaners on the board be against that then

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ethyl

Rangel's bill is just an embarrassment to himself. There's no point since today's wars do not require drafts unless, like I said, it's WWIII. Having the military option on the table is a MUST for foreign policy.... otherwise being the lone hyperpower in the world is useless. Rangel would end up removing that bargaining chip if he could.

War would always be on the table. A draft does not remove war from the table.

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

War would always be on the table. A draft does not remove war from the table.

How can war be used as a bargaining chip if his belief is true that war will be resisted by the US population... since there's the threat of punishing citizens and the military with a draft (the military sure as hell doesn't want it). The military option would be a joke since every nation could call our bluff.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ethyl

Rangel's bill is just an embarrassment to himself. There's no point since today's wars do not require drafts unless, like I said, it's WWIII. Having the military option on the table is a MUST for foreign policy.... otherwise being the lone hyperpower in the world is useless. Rangel would end up removing that bargaining chip if he could.

So you are saying that it's acceptable for "weekend warriors" in the reserve to be sent to Iraq over and over again? Don't look now, but the lines at recruiting offices aren't exactly stretching around the block these days. What happens when people no longer want a "part-time-job" in the reserves that sends them out to get killed? We simply aren't going to be able to sustain the kind of military posture Bush has forced us into indefinitely-without a draft. Rangel is not going anywhere this time with his proposal, but it WILL happen, eventually. You can't pay people enough to continue the risk of getting killed-especially in a war that only 1/3rd of this country still supports. Reality check time.

[hsmith]

Define irony: A black man wants to reinstate slavery

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

So you are saying that it's acceptable for "weekend warriors" in the reserve to be sent to Iraq over and over again? Don't look now, but the lines at recruiting offices aren't exactly stretching around the block these days. What happens when people no longer want a "part-time-job" in the reserves that sends them out to get killed? We simply aren't going to be able to sustain the kind of military posture Bush has forced us into indefinitely-without a draft. Rangel is not going anywhere this time with his proposal, but it WILL happen, eventually. You can't pay people enough to continue the risk of getting killed-especially in a war that only 1/3rd of this country still supports. Reality check time.

They signed a contract, they're bound by the contract. Recruitment quotas are still being made despite Iraq and Afghanistan... and the way you portray Iraq makes it sound like an ultimate meat grinder. Keep it in perspective with less than 3000 US soldiers killed... That's 5% of the deaths in Vietnam and a number FAR less than many battles in WWII.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ethyl

They signed a contract, they're bound by the contract. Recruitment quotas are still being made despite Iraq and Afghanistan... and the way you portray Iraq makes it sound like an ultimate meat grinder. Keep it in perspective with less than 3000 US soldiers killed... That's 5% of the deaths in Vietnam and a number FAR less than many battles in WWII.

There is a difference between dying for something and dying for nothing. While it is less than vietnam it is still extremely wrong. WWII was a justified conflict that was actually fighting for our country. Iraq and Vietnam were not in the interests of defending our country.

If there were another ww2 type conflict, the draft would not be an issue. If there was a draft after 9/11 to go to afghanistan, there would not be an issue.

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is a difference between dying for something and dying for nothing. While it is less than vietnam it is still extremely wrong. WWII was a justified conflict that was actually fighting for our country. Iraq and Vietnam were not in the interests of defending our country.

If there were another ww2 type conflict, the draft would not be an issue. If there was a draft after 9/11 to go to afghanistan, there would not be an issue.

And even if the draft were available for Iraq, it still wouldn't be an issue since commanders do not want it or deem it necessary... unless we want to talk about hypotheticals of Bush declaring war on more countries and having more ground invasions, which doesn't serve much use other than letting us get creative with our imaginations.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree since I don't believe their deaths are in vain.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

why would the right-leaners on the board be against that then

Conservatives arent in favor of mass voting.

Mass voting = democracy = mob rule.

[JaJae]

This was turned down by Nancy Pelosi.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Where are the "I want us to win in Iraq at all costs" people? All I see are pussies who shudder at the thought of more Americans having to bear the cost of war.

You don't want us to "cut and run" - you don't want the significant amount of troops that need to be added to win Iraq either. I hate to tell you this, but the only other option ("staying the course" with the current amount of troop levels) has not been putting us on the path to victory.

You guys that support the war, and claim that you want us to win over there are so full of shit, and this thread proves it.

You're cowards who want to win at all costs, just as long as YOU'RE not the one that has to bear the cost. You value your physical safety and tax dollars over getting serious and trying to win in Iraq. You don't have the intestinal fortitude to support what needs to be done if you're serious about wanting to win this war.

Rangel is right. If we all shared the burden of war, maybe we'd be a little more careful the next time we rushed into a preventative, preemptive war built on flimsy cherry picked evidence.

It's sad that only Rangel has balls, and the war supporters are whiny little babies who prefer to drive from the backseat.

I have been setting here reading posts on this forum for 2 hours and this is by far the BEST ONE!!! You hit it right on!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Where are the "I want us to win in Iraq at all costs" people? All I see are pussies who shudder at the thought of more Americans having to bear the cost of war.

You don't want us to "cut and run" - you don't want the significant amount of troops that need to be added to win Iraq either. I hate to tell you this, but the only other option ("staying the course" with the current amount of troop levels) has not been putting us on the path to victory.

You guys that support the war, and claim that you want us to win over there are so full of shit, and this thread proves it.

You're cowards who want to win at all costs, just as long as YOU'RE not the one that has to bear the cost. You value your physical safety and tax dollars over getting serious and trying to win in Iraq. You don't have the intestinal fortitude to support what needs to be done if you're serious about wanting to win this war.

Rangel is right. If we all shared the burden of war, maybe we'd be a little more careful the next time we rushed into a preventative, preemptive war built on flimsy cherry picked evidence.

It's sad that only Rangel has balls, and the war supporters are whiny little babies who prefer to drive from the backseat.

having a draft will hurt the military more than it will help. and I am one of those that have put everything on the line