Democrat Rangel Calls for Reinstating Military Draft

[ParanoiA]

Interesting position from a democrat. I would never agree to conscription. All military should be volunteer only. If you are fighting a noble and worthy campaign, then the country will be behind it and volunteers will be plentiful.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230598,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

 

It's funny too, because democrats are supposed to be the anti-war crowd. I guess Rangel didn't get the memo. I wonder how many New Yorkers are feeling betrayed after voting for him. These next two years with the Dems in power are going to be so awesome...

[-Demosthenes-]

There's a lot of people in the military already, like 1.4 million altogether. That's 75% of the population of my entire state

 

It was on FoxNews.com....

[gcol]

In the U.K., when Blair decided to ditch all traditional Labour values in order to seize the middle ground for electoral purposes he renamed his party (new labour) and some jokers are toying with renaming Camerons party as "not the conservative party".

 

Time for a dose of honesty in the U.S, perhaps.

 

How about New Republican and Not The Democrats, then they can play musical chairs to get their bums on the few remaining chairs of the political middle ground.

[Pangloss]

Amusing, gcol, but off-subject.

[Sisyphus]

Interesting position from a democrat. I would never agree to conscription. All military should be volunteer only. If you are fighting a noble and worthy campaign, then the country will be behind it and volunteers will be plentiful.

 

Agreed, for the most part. I think most people feel that way. Of course, volunteers are anything BUT plentiful. Is the conclusion that we need to leave Iraq ASAP, in case we have to fight an actually worthwhile war?

[ParanoiA]

Agreed, for the most part. I think most people feel that way. Of course, volunteers are anything BUT plentiful. Is the conclusion that we need to leave Iraq ASAP, in case we have to fight an actually worthwhile war?

 

I would assume the conclusion that we need to leave Iraq ASAP is because Americans have lost interest and resolve. Just watch a little TV and notice how ridiculously sporadic and jumpy the programming and commercials are presented - we have a very very short attention span. We wanted to invade, disarm, order and leave Iraq in a couple of months, no matter how fruity and naive it is to think that's possible. Even though the american people were told from the very beginning this would be a long, drawn out conflict - they just can't accept it in reality.

 

However, the volunteers are still pouring in, because many believe it's a worthwhile war. Many are in it for the war on terror as Iraq is a point of focus for terrorism. The lack of necessity for the draft proves that america supports this effort. We've been at war for years now, with no real end in sight - in fact, with more possible military conflict in other countries on the horizon and we're still getting volunteers to fight.

[-Demosthenes-]

Of course, volunteers are anything BUT plentiful.

 

Picture the entire population of Kansas as young people between the ages of 18 and 45. This is the U.S. Armed Forces (counting ALL "troops" active and inactive).

 

Volunteers = Plentiful.

[Mokele]

Didn't someone already try this about 2 years ago?

 

Isn't this just the same hackneyed political ploy to make people hate the war by making it a threat to them and their kids, just like last time?

 

$10 says it won't even be in the news a week from now, and it'll die before even being voted on.

 

Mokele

[D H]

Didn't someone already try this about 2 years ago?

 

Yes. His name was

 

(drum beat)

 

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

 

BTW, he voted against his own resolution and encouraged fellow Democrats to do the same when the Republicans called his bluff and put the resolution up for a vote.

 

A news article on this is here: http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015787.html.

[gcol]

Amusing, gcol, but off-subject.

 

I took the question as symptomatic of a possible ditching of traditional party principles, and wondered just how far a party can shift before honesty demands a rename. Older, traditional democrats had a position on conscription possibly dating back to the flag burners of the Vietnam war era, but the trend towards concensus politics has betrayed them. New politics rquires new names.

[Sisyphus]

Picture the entire population of Kansas as young people between the ages of 18 and 45. This is the U.S. Armed Forces (counting ALL "troops" active and inactive).

 

Volunteers = Plentiful.

 

Well, first of all, that's not terribly convincing. I mean, Kansas? And secondly, the size of the military is irrelevant. What matters is the rate of recruitment, and how that rate has changed. It's about that that I can't seem to get any straight statistics. We're told they're consistently either meeting or nearly meeting their recruitment goals. However, they also keep lowering those goals (in wartime!), as well as other fun tricks like lowering standards for recruitment.

[bascule]

Re: OP

 

The draft isn't going to fly... another solution is needed

[swansont]

Well, first of all, that's not terribly convincing. I mean, Kansas? And secondly, the size of the military is irrelevant. What matters is the rate of recruitment, and how that rate has changed. It's about that that I can't seem to get any straight statistics. We're told they're consistently either meeting or nearly meeting their recruitment goals. However, they also keep lowering those goals (in wartime!), as well as other fun tricks like lowering standards for recruitment.

 

They fell short of their goal of 80,000 in FY05 and met it in FY06.

 

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,77951,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm

 

The first article notes that the goals are currently half of what they were in 1979

[bob000555]

If we start the draft Mexico will be putting up a fence to keep us out. Any way the guy has proposed this before just because they’ve got the majority this time doesn’t mean it’s going to pass. Bush is already in enough trouble over this war I doubt he would sign it even if it does pass congress.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's totally ludicrous, they bring it up so everyone hates war a little more.

[Pangloss]

If we start the draft Mexico will be putting up a fence to keep us out.

 

Cute.

[big ez]

Hey all,

Honestly I don't mind the war. I even tried to join but due to a medical condition (too many concussions) I was deemed more of a liability to all of the branches I had contacted than help. The main thing I would like to know is what is this war fighting? I know the US can't back out because it would make it seem like we were wrong to start in the first place. Look at all of the feet the US is stepping on. Allies that are backing out, other countries getting mad. My uncle is in the Navy, is just finishing his last cruise before retirement, he says that the middle east isn't what the US has to worry about. It is Korea. According to him, I guess Korea isn't very happy with the US these days, and neither are to many other countries. Heck, the US isn't even happy with the US. The president not only has the US in a pickle, he has the civilians and the people fighting on his side in Iraq in a pickle to. If the US should back out, the Iraqi's main reinforcement would leave and the same thing would happen that happened when his father ran the country. They would all be lined up and killed. So, I ask all of you knowledgeable people here. What would be the best decision to make? Would you have the US back out and focus on an ever increasing threat elsewhere or stay and fight a war that many deem as pointless these days?

[Aardvark]

Hey all,

I know the US can't back out because it would make it seem like we were wrong to start in the first place.

 

That's probably bad reasoning, if it were wrong in th first place then staying longer will just make it worse for the US.

 

My uncle is in the Navy, is just finishing his last cruise before retirement, he says that the middle east isn't what the US has to worry about. It is Korea. According to him, I guess Korea isn't very happy with the US these days, and neither are to many other countries. Heck, the US isn't even happy with the US.

 

Well, North Korea isn't happy with the US. But North Korea is run by a homicidal drug dealing dictator. The US doesn't really have the choice of worrying about the Middle East or Korea, both areas are important to the US.

 

 

Would you have the US back out and focus on an ever increasing threat elsewhere or stay and fight a war that many deem as pointless these days?

 

Regardless of the original reasons for the Iraq war, pulling out would probably result in a collapse in Iraq with the outbreak of anarchy and civil war.

 

So my vote is to stay in and make the best of a bad job in rebuilding Iraq. To pull out would be to abandon the Iraqi people. That would be a grave betrayal.

[ParanoiA]

So my vote is to stay in and make the best of a bad job in rebuilding Iraq. To pull out would be to abandon the Iraqi people. That would be a grave betrayal.

 

Not to mention a repeated betrayal.