an army of kossacks? i assume all the angst ridden hordes of 18-22 y/os knew this is what they were voting for. because surely the existing military is too dumb to undertsnad the nuances of force makeup. halp us charlie rangel! http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html [rquoter]Top Democrat: Bring back the draft WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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. New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. "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, said he will propose a measure early next year. In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. 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 November 7 mid-term 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. He also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 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 and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS. Polls show most Americans oppose a draft Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military is 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. The Selective Service System, an agency independent of the Defense Department, 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.[/rquoter]
basso, why did you have to preface a thread about a good topic, even if it's one we've kicked around here dozens of times, with this BS? "i assume all the angst ridden hordes of 18-22 y/os knew this is what they were voting for. because surely the existing military is too dumb to undertsnad the nuances of force makeup. halp us charlie rangel!" Do you really feel that lousy? Rangel has been saying this like forever. It's nothing new. It is not anything the Democratic Party wants. Rangel does. Big deal. And in the spirit of the cheap shot I quoted, here's one back at you... if Bush and the Republican Leadership hadn't been so dumb, our men and women in the armed forces wouldn't be in Iraq, or if they were, they would have gone in with a post invasion plan, not the kiddie crap forced on the military by Bush and his coterie. D&D. Here We Are.
but now rangel is in a position to make his wishes come true, or at least press congress to reinstate the draft. again, do you think this is what you and your fellow...uhm, compadres, were voting for?
deckard, or anyone really. would you support instituting the draft to get us out of this conflict we are now in? do you support any sort of draft, either like what we had in vietnam, or maybe even a form of conscription like that of say, china?
Instituting the draft now would have little to do with getting us out of Iraq. The idea of a draft has merits. Personally, I'm against it. This is a pet issue of Rangel's that has no chance of happening. If the U.S. continues to strain it's military resources to the breaking point, the idea could gain momentum. Even then, I still cannot see any congress passing legislation to bring the draft back because the general public is strongly against it.
My personal opionion is that in the future, we will have a draft only for those who would support a war. Congress and the President will have the power to start a war, then it will become a general election (where the country will only go to war if the election decides that a war is necessary). Those that voted for the war will become a pool of people that can be drafted if the war turns sour.
You think Rangel has the ability to find 220 votes in the house and 50 votes in the senate for a draft? When you voted for a Republican, were you voting for any and every crazy idea any of them had?
Actually, we're all missing out on the important discussion, what is the condition of the U.S. military. Just how stretched are we? The Guard and Reserves weren't in great shape before the war... how are they doing after 4 years of combat? I don't see how you can have any sort of intelligent conversation on whether or not we should be paying any attention to Rangel without getting a real health check of the U.S. armed forces.
IMO, it's much more likely an administration will support a draft vs. having both house of congress passing a bill.
I am completely against a draft. I've said that anytime it's come up. We need to spend what it takes to have a large enough volunteer military. Not having endless rounds of tax cuts during a war would be a good start. That Bush has asked for them every year since he's been elected, and gotten pretty much what he's asked for from the Republican Congress, shows just how clueless he is, and what his priorities are. Pay the people what they deserve. No, that is impossible, but pay them more than what they're getting, enough to give their families a decent life, and enough to get people to enlist in a larger Army and Marine Corp, and to re-enlist. Give them the finest medical care available, and don't cut funding for research into things like artificial limbs, which is exactly what the Republican Congress did. Increase funding in those areas. The professional military is a better military, in my opinion, than the one we had with a draft, but not nearly as big. We can make it larger than it is if we decide to pay for it. It provides training and educational opportunities unavailable in the civilian world to many of those who join... something that gives them good jobs when they get out, and the chance to go to college. It provides a chance for those who want to serve their country to serve. The least the rest of us can do, those who take other paths in life, is pay them well, and provide them with excellent benefits. And honor their service, but that should go without saying. Anyone who wants to return to the madness of a draft wasn't of draft age during that time. If you were, you would be very likely to view it in a different light, and we wouldn't have the finest professional military in the world. One more thing. If we want people to join or stay in the National Guard, we need better leadership than we've had the last few years. The same thing about the professional military. They'll do what we, through our national leaders, ask them to do. The least we can do for them is not put them in harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. In my opinion, Afghanistan was, and Iraq was not. Yet seven times as many of our people are in Iraq, while Afghanistan drifts into chaos, the Taliban returns, and Osama remains at large. D&D. What Goes Around, Comes Around.
This guy is an absolute moron. As a New Yorker, I am ashamed to say that he represents my state. What kind of democrat proposes a draft 3 different times, or whatever it was. Besides that, how can you make ALL men and women that are between 18 and 42 serve time in the military. Stupid. With that said, I'd never get drafted. I have 40-60% hearing loss in one ear, and I'm due for knee surgery on Tuesday.
I always thought the democrats hated the idea of the draft. Was I wrong? Is this just Rangel being Rangel or an idea that other democrats have in common. But this really suprises me to see someone this far to the left support the draft. Edit I'm against the draft by the way.
George McGovern was a war hero in WWII. A bomber pilot who won the Distinguished Flying Cross. His exploits were the basis for Stephen Ambrose's book, The Wild Blue. As he proves, your political leanings have nothing to do with your patriotism, despite the crapola from the GOP every election, the last several years. D&D. Go Hug Someone!
One of his points is that a volunteer military relies heavily on the economically disadvantaged (or non-advantaged), many of whom join the military mainly for financial reasons. People who are well off do not have that incentive to join. He wants the "pain" and "risk" spread around so that whenever the country decides to go to war, all segments of society will share equally in the sacrifice of lives, limbs and mental health. He also feels that this shared sacrifice will make the country more thoughtful about committing troops on risky ventures. IMO, this line of thinking has merit. But I don't think instituting the draft and forcing people into military service who don't make the choice voluntarily fits with our society now. It would be a big mistake. Rangel's point with bringing this up is purely rhetorical since he knows it will fail, but it gives him a forum to state his opinion(s) again. Please don't think I'm defending Rangel. I think he's a borderline nutcase who is almost a disgrace to congress, like a lot of the worst Republicans. Americans just voted to throw out the trash (GOP) and it's sweeps people like him to the top.
You hit it head on there, I think. Yes, his line of thinking has merit if it works out ideally, but in today's society, there's no way it would. Politicians, especially, and other people with money would find ways to make sure their children somehow were not drafted. It would still all be the same. And besides that, I thought we became an official democracy way back in 1776... This mandatory military service is something Hitler would do. And no, I did not just compare the guy to Hitler...
he's for the draft so moron presidents like the current one won't send us off into wars all willy nilly, and people will think more about supporting wars if they may have to give up a personal sacrifice. could you imagine if there was a draft before iraq started? do you think there would have been more disucssion about going in?
We'll never have another universal draft in this country. It'll never pass in the House, because it wouldn't sit well back in the district. What worries me more was the idea of a limited draft that was introduced a couple of years ago. The idea is to draft skilled and professional personnel in areas that the military needs. The professions that were mentioned last time were doctors, nurses, engineers, and computer technicians. Something like this would have less backlash if passed, and would provide a disincentive for the military to do it's own training.
