To Draft or Not to Draft?

[TJ60]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc


well do u think it's a good idea? Is this what u wanted from the Democrats when u voted for them? To me i thought they were elected because people were against the war that the republicans were waging...so why shouldn't democrats take over and send people to war that elected them, against the voters will(Y)

[hoos]

Boost morale? Are you serious? That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Great they say they want to end the war, yet want to send unwilling people over there. Good job Dem. voters.

[Furyous]

LOL. Hey, they voted for them! Glad I'm outta the country right now!;)

[Quaker]

""I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said."

It's more about an attack on the republicans than anything... meaning.... if your going to lobby for a war against Iran / NK then be prepared to have your OWN kids fight it alongside everyone elses. Its easy to just send people overseas to die, but when it could be your own kid, it makes you think just a tad bit more.

[Eyez Neverclear]

Exactly Quaker. The whole point of that is another big fuck you to the R's. They arent actually gonna add the draft now and start sending drafted people to Iraq. They just wanna prove their point that we wouldn't have sent troops there in the first place had all those R's controlling Congress had to worry more about dragging their own constituents out of their home to fight their war. Think of it as a "possible" future deterent to getting into another war. If there's a draft and the American people aren't dead set on going then who ever is in office isn't going to get reeleceted. And we all know they spend 25 hours a day worrying about getting reelected.

[Furyous]

All right, all right... Enough of you two already, remember, a majority of your beloved party voted for the war in the first place. Don't believe me? Go here and check out the lawmakers who voted for the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

H.J. Resolution 114, which is the bill that authorized the use of force in Iraq, was passed 77 yea to 23 nea. We'd have been at war with or without a majority Dem house/senate. Nice try though fellas....

[Jimmy James]

he's not asking for a draft to send people to war, he's saying the army shouldn't be 100% volunteer. there was no war in 1948 when the draft was active.

All right, all right... Enough of you two already, remember, a majority of your beloved party voted for the war in the first place. Don't believe me? Go here and check out the lawmakers who voted for the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...2&vote =00237

H.J. Resolution 114, which is the bill that authorized the use of force in Iraq, was passed 77 yea to 23 nea. We'd have been at war with or without a majority Dem house/senate. Nice try though fellas....

the basis for that vote was to attack a country that, according to the president, backed the largest terrorist attack ever on american soil, and was also in the process of securing nuclear technology. who would have ever thought the president was lying?

[Loopus]

It was my thought that we never really got rid of the draft, as I had to register for selective service 12 years ago, and my girl had to when she received citizenship this year. That being said, it has not been active since the Vietnam era because the military felt that having a professional VOLUNTEER military was preferable, since anyone who signed up obviously chose to be there. The idea behind an all VOLUNTEER military is to cull dissent in the ranks. When you take civillians (such as myself) and force them into the military, the combat effectiveness goes down, and the casualties go up, not to mention the costs. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and equip an American soldier, I assume that as chairman of the Ways and Means committee, Charles Rangel (D-NY) is going to cut some of his beloved social programs to pay for this? Or am I correct in saying this is another attempt by the Democratic party to undermine the support for the war effort. Keep in mind that during the tail end of the Vietnam war, the US troops were fighting many succesful battles, and holding their own if not turning the tide of that conflict until a Democratic Congress pulled support for the troops, effectively forcing the Nixon administration to hastily withdraw from the war.

[hoos]

I understand that the D's are just trying to make a point, but please tell me how it is not also hypocritical to say that you are going to end the war, have a platform based upon that. Then come out and say you are going to send absolutely anyone to this war. That means continuing the war and not ending it. The D's are actually going to send more pople over there, rather than less people. Does that seem rational?

[TJ60]

the speaker of the house said its not on Januarys agenda...but they talked about it.

[Loopus]

Article in NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202006/news/nationalnews/rangel__bring_on_the_draft_nationalnews_geoff_earl e.htm

[Jimmy James]

this guy has been lobbying for the draft for 12 years, it has nothing to do with war, it's about the military....

"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," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran.

and for the record, Rangel voted no on the war in iraq:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

[Loopus]

Its not about the military, it's about race/class baiting. I guess he forgot the definition of the word "volunteer"

Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

[Maija]

Its not about the military, it's about race/class baiting. I guess he forgot the definition of the word "volunteer"

Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.


It's just one Democratic off-shot running his mouth. It doesn't represent that party as a whole.

It would be like listening to Jesse Helms as the voice of all Republicans.

[Jimmy James]

here's House Speaker elect, Nancy Pelosi talking about it
taken from: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/congress.democrats.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Pelosi said restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported.

"The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that," Hoyer added.

Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-New York, caused a stir by repeating a long-held position that a draft is the best way to ensure that all levels of society are represented in the military. Besides Rangel, there is almost no support in Congress for restoring the draft.

"It's not about a draft, it's about shared sacrifice in this country," Pelosi said. She said Rangel is "a strong voice for social justice in our country" and his support for the draft was "a way to make a point."

[Quaker]

I understand that the D's are just trying to make a point, but please tell me how it is not also hypocritical to say that you are going to end the war, have a platform based upon that. Then come out and say you are going to send absolutely anyone to this war. That means continuing the war and not ending it. The D's are actually going to send more pople over there, rather than less people. Does that seem rational?

Don't think it is geared to this war.... more of a general statment.

[Loopus]

He may not represent the Democratic party as a whole, but as chairman of the ways and means committee he is one of the most powerful Democrats in congress, and a dangerous individual at that, he wants to re=institute the draft... and de-fund the war. So basically he wants to send a bunch of middle-upper class white kids off to war with no equipment. And Jesse Helms, while he may have had some deplorable stands on civil issues, spoke for not only the Republican Party, but the entire country when he addressed the U.N. in 2000 http://www.sovereignty.net/center/helms.htm

[Furyous]

He may not represent the Democratic party as a whole, but as chairman of the ways and means committee he is one of the most powerful Democrats in congress, and a dangerous individual at that, he wants to re=institute the draft... and de-fund the war. So basically he wants to send a bunch of middle-upper class white kids off to war with no equipment. And Jesse Helms, while he may have had some deplorable stands on civil issues, spoke for not only the Republican Party, but the entire country when he addressed the U.N. in 2000 http://www.sovereignty.net/center/helms.htm

I couldn't agree with Jesse's speech to the UN more. Excellent post.

[hoos]

Don't think it is geared to this war.... more of a general statment.

Ok, I guess I'm not reading it that much. I guess they are just saying there should be a peace-time draft?

[Colonel Sanders]

I think a peace time draft is stupid, and it will never happen unless global tensions reach an all time high to where a world war could spark.

War Time in America = Draft

Peace Time = No draft

People don't like to be told by the government your joining the military when you really want to do something else..or you simply don't want to go and/or you don't agree with the country itself. Mini wars like Iraq, and possibly future Iran and North Korea are just that mini. No need for a draft. It would somewhat put us at a disadvantage for mobilization however if a world war would spark. Considering China can march there 800 million soldiers over Europe or the United States and we would be crippled before we could retaliate properly.

[Loopus]

"I couldn't agree with Jesse's speech to the UN more. Excellent post."

From what I read he just sounds pissed off that the UN isn't for sale.
Actually what he is pissed about is that the UN were calling us deadbeats, even though we contribute more to the UN than any other country. He was also criticizing the fact that the UN sees itself as the sole judge of when a country should use military force yet fails to reign in dictators (and this is before the oil for food scandal hit) and fails to curb genocides (Rawanda and Sudan anyone?) Yet criticizes when a country or organization (U.S. and NATO respectively) step in to do so. In addition here in NY it is well known that ambassadors to the UN routinely get away with flouting the law. The city loses billions annually in unpaid tickets and fines from UN staff and Ambassadors. But all of this is off topic, back to the draft discussion.

[Jimmy James]

Ok, I guess I'm not reading it that much. I guess they are just saying there should be a peace-time draft?

it would be both war-time and peace-time, like it was after WW2 and before Vietnam (and during the korean war). remember elvis in the army? well, I know you don't remember, but do you know he was drafted? do you know if he fought in a war? he didn't.

granted, during times of war more people would be drafted, but during times of peace, there will still be people drafted.

other countries have mandatory military service for all men. in some, especially islamic countries, it's considered a rite of passage to be drafted.

personally, I'm not in favor of a draft, I think it violates the thirteenth amendment, I just want it to be clear that this guy wasn't talking about a war draft, par say

[TJ60]

elvis atleast did his time..unlike ALI

[Loopus]

Once again, I point out that the Congressman calling for the draft, is also looking to de-fund the war. Does anyone else see this as a sign that Charlie Rangel might be well...... CRAZY?

Oh and Jock... there is still a spot for "Concientious Objectors" in this draft bill.

[TJ60]

thats bullshit, The only reason to be excused in my opinion is if ur health is a risk or in school.

[Dymond]

Ya know this whole plan did sound good on paper. I understood getting the point across that war doesn't sound like such a good idea when its your kids that might be forced to go. However didn't our current president finangle his way out of actually serving in the Vietnam War by protecting the skies above Texas in the Air National Guard? I'm just thinking that the rich and the powerful would find ways to keep thier kids out of harms way even with a draft so in reality its a hollow threat to say you want it reinstituted.

[TJ60]

/me sends dy to south korea

[SweetHoney]

I find this whole subject matter disturbing for several reasons...

For one, I never want my children to see death, let alone be faced with it as an option or a fact, or even a necessity. Knowing that it is highly improbable that I will be able to protect my children from death as a fact of life, I am faced with the only recourse of choosing how and when, and to what degree, it will be a part of their lives...at least until they are grown.

As for draftings and wars...I am intensely opposed to the requirement that makes it necessary in the first place. However, it is impossible to assume that there will ever be a time when war is not present in our world. By this fact alone, I am faced with the responsibility of choosing whether or not to be a part of the solution, or facilitating the problem itself.

I choose freedom over captivity, therefore I support whatever method is necessary to insure my personal freedoms and the freedoms of the people that I know and love. I cannot fathom voluntarily sending my children into a war zone, but I like even less the thought that they would one day be faced with "death camps" or "P.O.W." situations right here on our own soil.

Likewise, I believe that freedom should be a global condition, so the fighting that occurs to bring about freedom to all nations I consider to be valuable and acceptable. Unfortunately, the United States is one of only a few countries out there that willingly involves itself in the affairs of other countries and their well-being, freedom being a given. Before someone rails on me for the reasons behind wars not having to do with freedom, but with oil...understand that I am fully aware that there aren't always noble causes behind them.

Unfortunately, it is an imperfect world. If we are going to be involved in wars, we must not assume that anyone wants to fight or to die unnecessarily. If bringing back the draft means that a broader range of the populace is represented, or that somehow the likelihood of going to war in the first place is lessened...I am all for it.

Kill responsibly. Fight fair. Die for a worthy cause...? Yeah Right. Whatever. My stance is NO WAR, NO DRAFT, NO DEATH. Live long and prosper freely. Live and let live.

AND:
Since when is it considered "volunteering" when one gets paid to fight or to serve in the military? Enlisting is NOT volunteering.