Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

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

 

[Kandahar]

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Rangel's idea is dead on arrival and he knows it. He's just doing this to make a statement, which is fine.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Rangel's idea is dead on arrival and he knows it. He's just doing this to make a statement, which is fine.

I agree. He's just granstanding his point about being against the war in Iraq.

 

[tryreading]

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

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

I like his statement 'I don't know how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.'

Its irresponsible not to have a draft at this time, since we have two wars going.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

I like his statement 'I don't know how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.'

It's because terrorists, insurgents, guerillas, and the like - the groups most dangerous to American interests in the foreseeable future - are by their very natures slippery opponents; the sort of conventional military might and tactics that won World War II are of relatively little use against them (one of the great lessons of Vietnam, I thought). Awesome firepower is great, but you have to be able to bring it to bear. If one subscribes to the theory that a "war on terrorism" is the sort of conflict the successful prosecution of which calls for raids, assassinations, and pinpoint attacks, he of necessity chooses the small but highly trained professional military that America has long placed its trust in over a massive, unwieldy, poorly trained force. Think about it... a platoon of special forces with good intel could do more to hurt the terrorists than a regular infantry division of draftees under almost any circumstances, and small-scale operations have the added bonus of not alienating the locals in the way that America's perceived occupation of Iraq has.

Its irresponsible not to have a draft at this time, since we have two wars going.

And if one believed the wars themselves were irresponsible?

Given that the Bush administration is bent on reducing troop levels in Iraq - in other words, given that the commander-in-chief himself fails to see the need for a draft - how is it irresponsible? Less, I would argue, is sometimes more - particularly in a struggle that is purportedly against people rather than nations. We're using too much already.

 

[hipsterdufus]

It's a symbolic gesture. Read the article.

I do fear what would happen if the US was attacked with our troops bogged down in Iraq.

 

[cherokee]

It's a symbolic gesture. Read the article.

I do fear what would happen if the US was attacked with our troops bogged down in Iraq.

We could handle it...but volker and a few others wouldnt like what they saw next..

 

[tryreading]

It's because terrorists, insurgents, guerillas, and the like - the groups most dangerous to American interests in the foreseeable future - are by their very natures slippery opponents; the sort of conventional military might and tactics that won World War II are of relatively little use against them (one of the great lessons of Vietnam, I thought). Awesome firepower is great, but you have to be able to bring it to bear. If one subscribes to the theory that a "war on terrorism" is the sort of conflict the successful prosecution of which calls for raids, assassinations, and pinpoint attacks, he of necessity chooses the small but highly trained professional military that America has long placed its trust in over a massive, unwieldy, poorly trained force. Think about it... a platoon of special forces with good intel could do more to hurt the terrorists than a regular infantry division of draftees under almost any circumstances, and small-scale operations have the added bonus of not alienating the locals in the way that America's perceived occupation of Iraq has.



And if one believed the wars themselves were irresponsible?

Given that the Bush administration is bent on reducing troop levels in Iraq - in other words, given that the commander-in-chief himself fails to see the need for a draft - how is it irresponsible? Less, I would argue, is sometimes more - particularly in a struggle that is purportedly against people rather than nations. We're using too much already.

Slippery opponents aren't going to gain any edge over us because of a draft. The war may be unconventional, but its still run by people. And the more military over there, the less we have here available for rapid deployment. Also, I have a beef with allowing troops to return to Iraq for tour after tour. Of course the troops do it, they are loyal Americans and want to help any way they can. But they should not be allowed, in some cases, to repeatedly return to Iraq. It is unhealthy for them, beyond the possibility of physical harm.

Sure, small groups can do well in guerrilla fighting, but we need a large military as always. We need this for deterrence, emergency situations, proper manpower in the current Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, etc.

Another good line by Rangel was that those who have the power to involve the country in a war might think more deeply about that decision if their own children could be drafted. Although I wish it could be that way, our leaders know how to keep their kids out of action.

Bush is against the draft, but that doesn't mean not having one is the responsible choice.

I was against Iraq from the beginning. But I was for the Afghanistan invasion, and the general war on terror, and still am 100% behind them. They were and are necessary, and we need to proceed strongly with them.

 

[1069]

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

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

This proposal of his almost terrified me into a mental hospital last time he proposed it (about three years ago).
Both my sons will be draft age before this war is over.
But everybody told me then just to stop freaking; it was just grandstanding, and had no chance of passing.
And lo and behold, it sunk without a ripple.
Now it's bobbed to the surface again, apparently, like dead things tend to do after they reach a certain stage of decomposition; perhaps this time we can fish it out of the pond entirely, and give it a proper (and permanent) burial?
If this is a "statement" Rangel's making, it's not one that I like very much.
We've all got better things to do, I'm sure, than worry that the government is going to come and seize our children to use as cannon fodder. :?

 

[Navy Pride]

This proposal of his almost terrified me into a mental hospital last time he proposed it (about three years ago).
Both my sons will be draft age before this war is over.
But everybody told me then just to stop freaking; it was just grandstanding, and had no chance of passing.
And lo and behold, it sunk without a ripple.
Now it's bobbed to the surface again, apparently, like dead things tend to do after they reach a certain stage of decomposition; perhaps this time we can fish it out of the pond entirely, and give it a proper (and permanent) burial?
If this is a "statement" Rangel's making, it's not one that I like very much.
We've all got better things to do, I'm sure, than worry that the government is going to come and seize our children to use as cannon fodder. :?

Rangel is and idiot...........He floated a bill to bring back the draft a short time ago and out of 435 Congressman 3 voted for it and that does not even include him........

 

[Skip]

Rangel is and idiot...........He floated a bill to bring back the draft a short time ago and out of 435 Congressman 3 voted for it and that does not even include him........

How is that idiotic? Did you read the article? He's doing this to make a point.

What's your stance on the draft NP?

 

[Navy Pride]

How is that idiotic? Did you read the article? He's doing this to make a point.

What's your stance on the draft NP?

Its a grandstand play.........

I am totally against any draft..........

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Slippery opponents aren't going to gain any edge over us because of a draft. The war may be unconventional, but its still run by people. And the more military over there, the less we have here available for rapid deployment. Also, I have a beef with allowing troops to return to Iraq for tour after tour. Of course the troops do it, they are loyal Americans and want to help any way they can. But they should not be allowed, in some cases, to repeatedly return to Iraq. It is unhealthy for them, beyond the possibility of physical harm.

Regarding your first point: yes, but will the draft help us beat them? All I meant was that, if the War on Terror is won at all, it will be by small groups of highly trained soldiers with good intelligence.

Once we've extricated ourselves from Iraq, troop shortages shouldn't be so much of a problem. Since it seems to me that - for better or for worse - we'll be largely out of there by the next election, I'd argue that a long-term draft wouldn't make sense... and can you imagine them instituting it for two years only?

Sure, small groups can do well in guerrilla fighting, but we need a large military as always. We need this for deterrence, emergency situations, proper manpower in the current Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, etc.

The sort of large-scale war between world-class powers that would call for a full-strength American military would, I think, be destructive enough that after a few missile and bomb exchanges, it wouldn't matter who had what equipment or how many troops there were at the start of the war. The belligerent nations, and perhaps the whole world, would be in utter shambles. What could provide a better deterrent than that knowledge?

As for the other, smaller things soldiers might be required for, well, it's not as though there aren't tens upon tens of thousands of troops not in Iraq or Afghanistan - and even those could be withdrawn soon enough if there were a real crisis.

Another good line by Rangel was that those who have the power to involve the country in a war might think more deeply about that decision if their own children could be drafted. Although I wish it could be that way, our leaders know how to keep their kids out of action.

True enough. There are, I'm sure, better ways to incline the government to peace than to essentially take politicians' sons hostage.

Bush is against the draft, but that doesn't mean not having one is the responsible choice.

True enough; he's trying to fight a war while cutting taxes, after all. But to my knowledge, there is no broad support for conscription. If it were truly needed, I would very much like to think that people in the know would have brought it up. I was really kind of using Bush as a stand in for all of those people - the Leadership.

I was against Iraq from the beginning. But I was for the Afghanistan invasion, and the general war on terror, and still am 100% behind them. They were and are necessary, and we need to proceed strongly with them.

Agreed... but once again, I don't think that doing so will necessarily require more troops.

 

[ModerateDem]

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

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

You missed the point on his proposal his proposal is not a defeat for democrats rather his intent is to show gleaming Hypocrisy. Rangle was quoted saying: "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."


source:House Democrat wants draft reinstated - Yahoo! News

 

[PrimBabUB]

Another good line by Rangel was that those who have the power to involve the country in a war might think more deeply about that decision if their own children could be drafted Although I wish it could be that way, our leaders know how to keep their kids out of action.

Hypocrit Rangel knows that too as evident by this statement further down in the article.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Not only a hypocrit but a liar. In 2003 this fifth columnist came up with the draft bill himself and introduced it to congress trying to pass it off as something the Republicans were doing. Then procedes to send out the following email to scare people into voting against Pres. Bush:

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005 There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163,to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.
The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.

· The Congress has added $28 million to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for this military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.

· Bush has ordered the Selective Service to report to him by March 31, 2005 on their readiness to implement the draft by June 2005

· The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.

Please act on this:

· Tell everyone you know - parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents, friends, teachers

· Call and write to your U.S. Senator and your U.S. Representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills.

Here's the outcome of Charlie's bill of which HE VOTED AGAINST:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml

It makes one shake one's head in disbelief over the stupidity of the people that keep putting this man in office.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Could care less of Rangel but his statement,

'I don't know how anyone can support the war and not support the draft'

rings so true--Bush realizes if he pushes that option, many GOP votes will be lost; oh, that's right, Nov 7 already came and went :lol: