PDA

View Full Version : draft reinstated



Jolie Rouge
11-19-2006, 09:40 PM
Senior Democrat renews call for military draft
House Democrat wants draft reinstated
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "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."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military. "I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

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.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 — now about 16 million — from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

___

On the Net:

Selective Service System: http://www.sss.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_co/military_draft

stresseater
11-19-2006, 10:55 PM
gee and here I've been hearing all along it was the republicans who were gonna reinstate the draft and send all our kids off to war against their own wishes. :rolleyes: This will never pass he's just stirring up crap. The public doesn't want it, the military doesn't want it. :D

freeby4me
11-20-2006, 05:16 AM
I've never liked the draft for the reasoning that You are putting your life in the hands of someone who never wanted to be there in the first place. At least the volunteers knew they would end up over there and THEY made the decision to join. I shudder at the idea of their lives in the hands of people like that.

Jolie Rouge
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
Translation help needed: Decode Rangel
Can you figure out what the heck he's saying here?

I’ve watched this five times and I’m still not sure what he’s saying. I think he’s trying to argue that there’s no legitimate national security interest to our being in Iraq because, if there were, we wouldn’t have to recruit the poor by running ads and offering financial incentives. Patriotism would be incentive enough and would cut across classes. But since patriotism apparently isn’t enough, that proves the war is illegitimate which means the poor end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden which in turn means we should either limit our strategic options by eschewing war entirely to prevent this inequity or reinstate the draft so that the sacrifice is shared equitably among people who didn’t enlist and don’t want to be there. Which I guess means the war in Afghanistan is illegitimate too.

He also gently reminds Pelosi that the new Democratic Congress is supposed to be about hearings, fact-finding, deliberation. So why the rush to get this issue off the table?

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/20/video-rangel-says-iraq-volunteers-are-in-it-for-the-money-or-something/

cadwellm
11-24-2006, 04:00 PM
I consider it to be a form of slavery

emb90
11-24-2006, 08:42 PM
thats an interesting way to put it cadwellm, but I completely agree with you now that I think about it

Jolie Rouge
11-24-2006, 10:08 PM
draft = slavery ? Please explain ...

cadwellm
11-25-2006, 03:04 PM
Well, simplisticly, slavery is when your are owned by someone and have to do their bidding whether you want to or not. Per the dictionary: involuntary subjection to another or others

I equate the draft with slavery because of a few things:
- The U.S. governenment "owns" you while you are in the military.
- The military tells you what to wear, how to wear your hair, where to go, etc. even if you don't want to.
- You may have to kill someone if sent to the front.

If you sign up yourself then it's not slavery because you have probably looked into it and kinda know what you are getting yourself into and realize you are going to have to follow the rules the military defines and do some things you wouldn't ordinarily do (like killing someone).

But, if you are drafted your choices are taken away from you.

Now, don't get me wrong, unfortunately our military is a necessity. But I do not believe slavery is the way to go about getting people to sign up.

How about knowing that if you serve your country and you get sick then there WILL be medical services available to you. Unlike some of the vets I know that need to see a doctor and can't even get an appointment or the doctor tells them they mental difficulties.

How about ensuring vets will always have a place to live. Some vets are homeless because they can't get the mental help they need and can't hold down a job.

I believe if we fixed these problems more people would be willing to sign up.

Just my IMHO.

freeby4me
11-25-2006, 03:07 PM
I agree....If you want more people to sign up then PAY THEM MORE!!!! Dont bring back the draft and turn them into slaves.

wubbywa
11-25-2006, 05:19 PM
I may get my head ripped off but send some prisoners over there instead of sitting in a jail cell getting all there needs met. I know what someone will say give those people guns. Heck put them on the front lines if they come back alive and not killing our own then let them earn their freedom back. Let them find out what they should be proud off--protecting our country.

YNKYH8R
11-26-2006, 11:14 AM
I'd rather see a mandatory 2 years service to everyone when they turn 18. Then if they want to stay they can or leave when their service is up. If EVERYONE had to serve (barring medical ineptitude) then maybe vets would get the support they need. And no ducking out through money or celebrity status.

cadwellm
11-26-2006, 12:41 PM
Wubbywa, I understand where you come from when you talk about sending inmates to the front. But it makes me cautious. Some inmates are unstable to begin with but may not show their "true selves" until they are put under extreme stress (like war). Then they may turn their guns/bombs on their fellow troopsmen instead of the enemy. It's a touchy situation.

However, sending some inmates to the front would be a good idea. Ones that wanted to reduce their jail time and passed a lot of psychological tests.

I would draw the line at serial killers and assasins though.

stresseater
11-26-2006, 06:27 PM
I'd rather see a mandatory 2 years service to everyone when they turn 18. Then if they want to stay they can or leave when their service is up. If EVERYONE had to serve (barring medical ineptitude) then maybe vets would get the support they need. And no ducking out through money or celebrity status.
I agree. ;) :D

Jolie Rouge
11-26-2006, 07:00 PM
I'd rather see a mandatory 2 years service to everyone when they turn 18. Then if they want to stay they can or leave when their service is up. If EVERYONE had to serve (barring medical ineptitude) then maybe vets would get the support they need. And no ducking out through money or celebrity status.

An excellent suggestion.

YNKYH8R
11-26-2006, 08:06 PM
I noticed the significantly reduced signature....was there a problem? And "is it better" for whom?

Jolie Rouge
11-26-2006, 09:33 PM
I noticed the significantly reduced signature....was there a problem? And "is it better" for whom?

The sig hasn't changed - the font seems to be a little tighter. I couldn't change anything after the rules limited the number, if I changed anything I would lose half my signature. Tyt Bugdet has had my vote since about 2003, she has been banned since late 2004. The Greek has been then since about the summer of that year and French since shortl after I joined. The "Is that better ?" was a joke between Jaybird and I.

YNKYH8R
11-27-2006, 06:06 PM
The sig hasn't changed - the font seems to be a little tighter. I couldn't change anything after the rules limited the number, if I changed anything I would lose half my signature. Tyt Bugdet has had my vote since about 2003, she has been banned since late 2004. The Greek has been then since about the summer of that year and French since shortl after I joined. The "Is that better ?" was a joke between Jaybird and I.Who's Tyt Bugdet?

Jolie Rouge
11-27-2006, 07:27 PM
LOL Tyt Budget was "running" for the Oval Office in 2004 on a platform of declaring a 4 day work week & sex slaves for everyone. I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Said it then - say it now. A canidate we can all get behind.

mycatsrdum
12-09-2006, 05:13 AM
round up the pedophiles and send them over there with no guns:mad: