• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Top Democrat: Bring back the draft

while most of the dying in Vietnam were blacks, and Hispanics. That's a fact Jack.
Prove this to be true.
Show us the casualty statictics.
I'll bet that >85% of those killed where Caucassians.
 
are you admitting to making up your little fact, Jack?


No, I just don't have no stinking link, don't you believe me? Google it yourself if you don't believe me.

Here, I'll get you started... google, let's see, Vietnam, group racials of deaths, student deferments, proper proportions of minorities killed in Vietnam in relation to the whole.

Try one of those and see what pops up.

For Christs sake, do I have supervise your every move? :cool:
 
For whatever reason, you seem to think that the only way to increase the size of the military is to have a draft.

Why do you think this?

In this case, where we need hundreds of thousands of more troops quickly, a draft is the only way. There are not hundreds of thousands of volunteers just standing by who can't get in. The US Army can't even meet its recruting goals.
 
A) The military itself is against the draft.

B) The draft will insure that anti-war folks will be serving leading to a military with low morale not to mention soldiers who are more suited to working at burger king or not working at all than to be responsible for million dollar pieces of equipment.

C) A professional volunteer military is simply better than a draft military consisting of un-professional conscripted soldiers.

D) Thomas Jefferson didn't serve in the revolution, Benedict Arnold did, who was the greater Patriot?

A) I wonder what your source on this is. I've heard repeatedly that US commanders in Iraq have asked for one thing, more troops. They all want it, they have been asking for years not.

B) because being in an unwinnable war is good for morale...

C) That isn't true if the volunteer military can't perform its mission.

D) I'm not addressing the issue of patrotism.
 
No, I just don't have no stinking link, don't you believe me? Google it yourself if you don't believe me.

Here, I'll get you started... google, let's see, Vietnam, group racials of deaths, student deferments, proper proportions of minorities killed in Vietnam in relation to the whole.

Try one of those and see what pops up.

For Christs sake, do I have supervise your every move? :cool:

Here is your link dumbazz! maybe you should look around before you run your mouth..

Research - Statistical information about casualties of the Vietnam conflict

CACCF Record Counts by Race (as of 12/98)
Racial category titles are those used in the documentation created at the genesis of the file, ca. 1967
Race Number of Records
American Indian 226
Caucasian 50,120
Malayan 252
Mongolian 116
Negro 7,264
Unknown, Not Reported 215
Total 58,193
 
Here is your link dumbazz! maybe you should look around before you run your mouth..

Research - Statistical information about casualties of the Vietnam conflict

CACCF Record Counts by Race (as of 12/98)
Racial category titles are those used in the documentation created at the genesis of the file, ca. 1967
Race Number of Records
American Indian 226
Caucasian 50,120
Malayan 252
Mongolian 116
Negro 7,264
Unknown, Not Reported 215
Total 58,193



That's the most assinine link I've ever seen, are Hispanics considered Caucasians now?
 
In this case, where we need hundreds of thousands of more troops quickly, a draft is the only way. There are not hundreds of thousands of volunteers just standing by who can't get in. The US Army can't even meet its recruting goals.

This is either a lie, or you not knowing any better. They have made their goals regularly for some time now.

In 1991 the military was twice the size it is now, across a smaller population base. Why can't we double the size of the military w/o a draft?
 
That's the most assinine link I've ever seen, are Hispanics considered Caucasians now?

Still waiting for you to show that most deaths where blacks and hispanics.
 
President Bush got one and so did many, in fact, millions of Republican kids got out of serving in Vietnam or the draft because of student deferments, or so I hear. Most deferments were 'white' well to do kids while most of the dying in Vietnam were blacks, and Hispanics. That's a fact Jack.

Blacks were 12.5% of all causalities and they made up 11% of the general population. Whites were over 86%. Your arguement is falacious. You don't know Jack.

Millions of Democrat kids got student deferments and they were not issued based on race or political party and were ended before the war ended, recall Clintons famous letter when he lost his and had to submit to the draft lottery.
 
That's the most assinine link I've ever seen, are Hispanics considered Caucasians now?

That's the government records. Hspanics are caucasin.
 
That's the most assinine link I've ever seen, are Hispanics considered Caucasians now?

Its the National Archives

God you're soo dumb...:roll:
 
No, I just don't have no stinking link, don't you believe me? Google it yourself if you don't believe me.

Here, I'll get you started... google, let's see, Vietnam, group racials of deaths, student deferments, proper proportions of minorities killed in Vietnam in relation to the whole.

Try one of those and see what pops up.

For Christs sake, do I have supervise your every move? :cool:
Here's how the game works, kidrocks. You make an assertion, then it's your responsibility to provide the data....not mine.

:roll:
 
This is either a lie, or you not knowing any better. They have made their goals regularly for some time now.

In 1991 the military was twice the size it is now, across a smaller population base. Why can't we double the size of the military w/o a draft?

There was an article on CNN a few week ago that the Army missed their recruiting goals for a third months in a row.

The military in 1991 already existed at that size, we need 1.2 million troops more than we have to follow US Army standard deployment schedule, and get troops level to the recommended levels. We aren't going to get those from volunteers.
 
There was an article on CNN a few week ago that the Army missed their recruiting goals for a third months in a row.
Good -- that means you can find it and post it.

Army Meets Yearly Recruiting Goal

Associated Press | September 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Army is ending its best recruiting year since 1997 and expecting similar success in 2007, despite the weight of grim war news from Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said.


The military in 1991 already existed at that size,
How did we get there without a draft?
 
Wow this is funny.First off Charles Rangel is not to bright there.He isan't going to bring back the draft.All he cares about is prooving the point that people who are for the war won't fight in it or something.It's even funnier that it's not working.Yeah guys lets send all the Republicans....because we onbiously auto-hate going because we support it.They just interviwed Rangel on FoxNews and he charmingly dodged the reporters questions like lots of Dems. on that channel vow to themselves before they're on air to do.He was almoist as bad as Kerry last night "Senator Kerry, why didn't you apologize right away" "Chris...I think the issue we need to stay on is how we're going to deal with Iraq" just answer the damn question sheesh is that too hard for you guys to do?!

And here is Rangel saying that he wants to bring back the draft but also wants to pull out of Iraq.Smart hypocrtical idea.He'll bash the president but then defend him like it's his brother when Chavez verbally assualted Bush.He's just another hyprocritical Dem. that's too old to be in Congress and unfortunately he has to be from my state.
 
Good -- that means you can find it and post it.

Army Meets Yearly Recruiting Goal





How did we get there without a draft?

you're right, im trying to lie to decieve you, ahahaha...

***

the articles I mentioned were older than I thought, my mistake.

We had an army that size becauze we built it up over years. We don't have that now, and we cant get it back in time. Especially during a time of war.
 
The kid won't be back to this thread. Once proven a liar, he always disappears. :cool:
 
Wow this is funny.First off Charles Rangel is not to bright there.He isan't going to bring back the draft.............................................And here is Rangel saying that he wants to bring back the draft but also wants to pull out of Iraq.Smart hypocrtical idea.He'll bash the president but then defend him like it's his brother when Chavez verbally assualted Bush.He's just another hyprocritical Dem. that's too old to be in Congress and unfortunately he has to be from my state.

Rangel is a race baiter and a bigot. This is just another move to turn the public against the war.
 
A lie requires an intent to decieve. For instance, claiming to know someone was lying when you didn't know...
Goobieman proved him a liar (again) in post 33. That's why the kidrock is gone!
 
Rangel is a race baiter and a bigot. This is just another move to turn the public against the war.

The majority of people are against the war now... which is credited with the Democratic victory in the recent election. I don't think Rangel thinks he is turning anybody against the war, those that still support it by now, probably always will.
 
The majority of people are against the war now... which is credited with the Democratic victory in the recent election.

Yep, which is why we should get the military out as soon as possible and then hunker down. The Dems have won the war against the war on the homefront. Without the support of the country it is pointless to leave our military in harms way. Now we face the consequences of thier irresponsible rhetoric.

I don't think Rangel thinks he is turning anybody against the war, those that still support it by now, probably always will.

He didn't just start this business, he has contributed to the demoralization of the country and our losing our resolve to win.
 
Back
Top Bottom