So much for the cons bein for the draft..

binauralsounds

Ahh the dems hit the ground running. PUSH FOR DRAFT!!!!!!!

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

WASHINGTON -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

Scratchin a Letter

binauralsounds wrote:

Ahh the dems hit the ground running. PUSH FOR DRAFT!!!!!!!

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

WASHINGTON -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

This would encourage the US to act with a litle more responsibility. It would make it very hard for them as a country to blag wars, particularly when the forces are involuntary.

sapperskunk

He tried doing this in 01 or 03 too.

Isn't it interesting how lately people associate a military draft with republicans. But in reality the only person you hear mention it is a Liberal.

sapperskunk

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

This would encourage the US to act with a litle more responsibility. It would make it very hard for them as a country to blag wars, particularly when the forces are involuntary.

So as a Democrat, you're in favor of a military draft?

Vedderlution_Baby

So that's one dem for the draft...but that equals the whole party? I don't judge all the cons off of rush.

flywallyfly

I'm all for a draft. If Iraq is so important then i think every male up to age 40 should have to go over there. If it is not important enough for a draft then let's get the hell outta there.

sapperskunk

This is seriously some fucked up logic. So instead of having an all volunteer military fighting an unpopular war, we'll have a bunch of draftees fighting an unpopular war. Good luck Rangel. And to everybody else, have fun in the sandbox, cause aint shit gonna change.

Scratchin a Letter

sapperskunk wrote:

So as a Democrat, you're in favor of a military draft?

I'm not a democrat, I'm not even American. I'm just a spectator. I don't see what the draft has to do with either political party. But if a country feels the need to wage such conflicts, they should do it the hard way, rather than with troops they can exploit under the excuse that it was their choice.

sapperskunk

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not a democrat, I'm not even American. I'm just a spectator. I don't see what the draft has to do with either political party. But if a country feels the need to wage such conflicts, they should do it the hard way, rather than with troops they can exploit under the excuse that it was their choice.

Sorry about that, I assumed you leaned to the left due to your Eddie Vedder quote about killing President Bush? But I guess I was reaching huh?

Maybe I'm crazy, but this logic sounds ridiculous. Don't you get it? Nothing will change, We'll just have new guys dying who tacitly consented just by being born here in the US.

Where are you from and does your country of origin currently have a military draft?

jeffbr

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not a democrat, I'm not even American. I'm just a spectator. I don't see what the draft has to do with either political party. But if a country feels the need to wage such conflicts, they should do it the hard way, rather than with troops they can exploit under the excuse that it was their choice.

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with concepts like choice and free will. I feel bad about that.

The draft is absolutely political. The military doesn't want it. The administration doesn't want it. Anyone who wants to be re-elected will vote against it.

Rangel is only doing this to make a point. He's done the same thing a couple of other times, and each time foreigners seem to misunderstand the move. The US isn't about to reinstate the draft, and anyone who things so is extremely naive.

soulsinging

1. you have to register for a draft at 18 already anyway. it's called the selectve service.

2. this guy's been doing this for years. he does it as a stunt to get people to think long and hard about whether or not they support war in iraq enough to consider having to go themselves, or send their children over there. it's very easy to say "im for the war" when neither you nor anyone you know has their ass on the line.

cincybearcat

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So that's one dem for the draft...but that equals the whole party? I don't judge all the cons off of rush.

Since rush isn't a congress person, that's good.

Can you tell the difference between a congress person and a talk show host?

Vedderlution_Baby

cincybearcat wrote:

Since rush isn't a congress person, that's good.

Can you tell the difference between a congress person and a talk show host?

Sure. One's full of shit and....wait...no that's not right.

kenny olav

It's old news that Rangel supports the draft. Apparently it's only been dragged out again now that the Dems are in power. But there's no way in hell Congress will restore the draft. Just another non-story.

ThumbingMyWay32

Charlie Rangel is one of the greatest U.S. Congressmen of our time.

jlew24asu

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So that's one dem for the draft...but that equals the whole party? I don't judge all the cons off of rush.

well I would hope not. rush is just some guy with an opinon. he doesnt vote on laws or help draft them. who gives a fuck what the guy has to say. he's not an elected offical. I think you knew that right?

ThumbingMyWay32

Rush is the Messiah. Allah, if you will.

jeffbr

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Charlie Rangel is one of the greatest U.S. Congressmen of our time.

As far as entertainment value goes you may be right.

ThumbingMyWay32

jeffbr wrote:

As far as entertainment value goes you may be right.

Reagan was a great entertainer.

sponger

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

they should do it the hard way, rather than with troops they can exploit under the excuse that it was their choice.

I couldn't agree with that more. We have guys going in there for their 2nd or 3rd tours because nobody else wants to do it. At least in Vietnam it was one tour and you get to go home. Haven't the Generals been saying that we don't have enough people in there? I hate to see anyone get shipped off to war, but that is the price we pay when we start wars that should never have began.

ThumbingMyWay32

sponger wrote:

I couldn't agree with that more. We have guys going in there for their 2nd or 3rd tours because nobody else wants to do it. At least in Vietnam it was one tour and you get to go home. Haven't the Generals been saying that we don't have enough people in there? I hate to see anyone get shipped off to war, but that is the price we pay when we start wars that should never have began.

Great point considering the fact that not one soldier re-enlisted in Vietnam.

Vedderlution_Baby

jlew24asu wrote:

well I would hope not. rush is just some guy with an opinon. he doesnt vote on laws or help draft them. who gives a fuck what the guy has to say. he's not an elected offical. I think you knew that right?

Yes I know the difference.


I should have said I dont judge all cons off of bush.

sponger

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Great point considering the fact that not one soldier re-enlisted in Vietnam.

If by "re-enlisting" you mean voluntarily staying beyond their first tours, then I don't consider that to be an accurate statement.

Uncle Leo

I'm totally on board with this. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought the GOP wanted a draft--they rely on the votes of the upper-middle class to a large extent, many of whom do not have to worry aobut their kids...

If everyone was faced with the possibility of having themselves or their kids have to go to war, people would really have to sit down and decide if they thought it was worth it. No collge deferments, no buying your way out (OK, we all know that the richest and most connected would buy their way out somehow, but not the faceless middle and upper-middle class).

Uncle Leo

icarus wrote:

the draft didnt stop us from going into vietnam

I don't know the history as well as I ought to, but I doubt the draft was in effect when we went into Vietnam. We thought it would be much swifter than it was* and the draft was installed when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

* sound familiar?

ThumbingMyWay32

Uncle Leo wrote:

I don't know the history as well as I ought to, but I doubt the draft was in effect when we went into Vietnam. We thought it would be much swifter than it was* and the draft was installed when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

* sound familiar?

Why is the general perception, on this board, that an all volunteer army is one that is merely confused and enslaved by it's government? It's almost as if we have an entire army that actually didn't want to be in the army for fear that they may actually be in the army....... That would of course require doing army things...... And we can't have that. Yet if we force service on the general population victories will be won simply by putting boots on the ground. Granted there is actually a war that you guys believe should ever be fought. Which is what I think this is really all about. There is no war worthy of fighting which makes the draft simply a political talking point for Democrats. If rich kids are scared to serve and poor kids are being forced to serve, what's the point in having an army? Rich kids are scared and poor kids are forced. I'm only guessing liberals are applying the double-negative here rule which would explain why they believe most of the things they do.

This draft talk is just phony babbling.

sponger

Uncle Leo wrote:

when we were in deep.

If it was understood that all wars would have X percent of the troops be draftees that may make a difference when the public is deciding whether it is worth it.

In that case, you'd have to make every war require x percent of draftees. Otherwise, the politicians will always be initiating wars that do not initially require draftees. Manpower originally was not an issue in Iraq. I don't think anyone foresaw the insurgency problem becoming such an impediment.

Uncle Leo

sponger wrote:

In that case, you'd have to make every war require x percent of draftees.

Yes. That's what I am saying.

sponger

Uncle Leo wrote:

Yes. That's what I am saying.

What about wars like Panama and Afghanistan? You would then propose making sure that a certain number of draftees are present during those operations?

ThumbingMyWay32

And please don't sit there and try to convince me that YOU would be willing to drop what you're doing and fight a war that YOU believe in.

I know this is a fashionable approach for liberals to take when "discussing" the Iraq war.

But, let's all be honest. No liberal here will ever agree with any war being fought in the present tense.

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

And please don't sit there and try to convince me that YOU would be willing to drop what you're doing and fight a war that YOU believe in.

I know this is a fashionable approach for liberals to take when "discussing" the Iraq war.

But, let's all be honest. No liberal here will ever agree with any war being fought in the present tense.

I would.