Jenkinsbball
Banned
+149|6806|USA bitches!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230598,00.html

WASHINGTON —  A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against 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," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose the measure early next year.

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," he said.

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, incoming chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means 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 trains, 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.
I think the idea of reinstating is stupid. I don't really support the war in Iraq, so being drafted into it would only make sense...

/end sarcasim


What are your thoughts?
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA
i love how these self appointed military "experts" in congress are saying the exact opposite of what the generals and admirals with shoulder boards big enough to sell advertising space on have to say on the issue. every week i talk to people signing up for their 3rd and 4th tour of the sandbox. abizaid has to explain shit to ted kennedy like he's teaching kindergartners to paint by number. this was the true problem with vietnam, war should be left to warriors, politicians only serve to blur the issues. yes these knobs served, that doesn't make them the infallible godhead on the issue, I've cut down an assload of trees in my life, that doesn't make me a lumberjack.

this was just discussed on the radio here at work, it seems rangel is of the impression that there aren't enough "rich white kids" in the military, despite studies showing that the military fairly accurately represents the US in terms of ethnic and economic backgrounds, what a knob, everything seems to be about class warfare with him

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-20 07:22:34)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6787|Global Command
This is from another thread, but it applies here too;

     This whole thing has become a fiasco in Iraq because of politics. Shitbrains like Kerry spend troops. For all the money that's been spent in Iraq, you can bet that certain things like body armor were argued about by men like him. Appropriations of war materials is done through channels. People have connections, thats why the marine corps is being forced to accept additional body armor for the grunts they don't want. Some asshole senator has a company in his district that makes the armor so goddamnit they are going to get it.
     Likewise, when asshole polititians hate each other, they will be willing to have America lose troops and suffer humiliating defeat; so long as their political enemy doesn't gain.

     That's why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good.

     If America is serious in Iraq, we will double the number of troops and reinstate American direct administration of the country. Completely sweep and disarm everybody and close the fucking border. We can do in Iraq what we can't do in Texas and California which is blow the fuck out of anything living attempting to cross the border. We start over with new elections and try again. We manage and use the oil funds to rebuild and fund our deployment.
     Or we get the fuck out.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

You know once you posted something that had "Foxnews" in it most people hit the back button on their browser.
I suggest using http://tinyurl.com/ to disguise the evil media outlet.

http://tinyurl.com/y3e5ju
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6907

LOLZ ZOMG Fox News!!!! ALERT! ALERT!
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6813
The fact of the matter is that an insufficient number of troops are and always have been stationed in Iraq for the carrying out of the task they are/were purported to be performing after the fall of Saddam.  The number of troops required would have had to be enough to administer the kind of police state ATG talks of, the kind of police state that Saddam was adept at administering - the kind that silenced dissent. The fact of the matter is that it was always going to be unfeasible to send the requisite number of troops to carry out the 'task' given that this was a war of choice that a vocal voting minority (now majority) vehemently opposed. The US just proved that they couldn't do it in actual, military and political terms - exactly like what happened in Vietnam.

Western nations have become soft in our comfort zone, just like Rome did. The downtrodden will always fight harder and with more perseverence than nations of people who want to get back home to watch a DVD while their wife goes out to get a manicure....

What shocks me is that the larger country of Afghanistan has a fraction of the troops stationed in it. Priorities....

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-20 08:25:03)

kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

ATG wrote:

That's why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good.
this is what pisses me off about repubs trying to work "across the aisle", the dems can't accept it, it's too unnatural for them, sure they'll take a committee seat if you give it to them but don't think for a second they'll actually try to work toward a common goal, next time the repubs win they need to act like it and do their damn job instead of playing footsie with the bastards. it only comes back to bite them in the ass.
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7064|Orlando, FL - Age 43
Wasn't this supposed to be part of the 'January Surprise' that the Dems accused that G.W. was planning if he won in 2004?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6813

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Wasn't this supposed to be part of the 'January Surprise' that the Dems accused that G.W. was planning if he won in 2004?
It's the new bi-partisan approach to American politics!!!!
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|6939|Dayton, Ohio
I love the logic.  Lets use the draft as a deturnet against using the military.  I am going to force a whole buch of unwilling citizens to join the army.  Then, because I know they don't want to fight, I will refuse to use the military because I know they are not willing to give their lives for thier country.  Sounds like a great way to IMPROVE our military and national moral. NOT

One volunteer is worth 10 drafties.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2006-11-20 09:23:30)

kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6728|Little Rock, AR

kr@cker wrote:

ATG wrote:

That's why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good.
this is what pisses me off about repubs trying to work "across the aisle", the dems can't accept it, it's too unnatural for them, sure they'll take a committee seat if you give it to them but don't think for a second they'll actually try to work toward a common goal, next time the repubs win they need to act like it and do their damn job instead of playing footsie with the bastards. it only comes back to bite them in the ass.
So thte democrats are the only ones that play party politic bullshit?  Are you kidding me?  I fall on the republican side on at least as many issues as I fall in with the democrats, and they're both full of the same political bullshit.  If you can't see that both parties pull the same shit, you're completely blind...  Politicians get paid way too much money and have way too much prestige.  When this country was founded, serving the government was just that.  It was an inconvinent service that men gave because their country needed them.  Now it's a cushy job that pays a great salary up front and a ton of cash on the back end...
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6806|San Diego, CA, USA
I don't mind being drafted - I'm bored.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
I don't get it.  What's wrong with Rangel's idea?  Also, how is this a case of "Democrats at it already" as usual?  lol  "A" democrat, who's always been "pro-draft" is just saying what he's said all along, and he's right.  Having a greater pool of soldiers is needed.  This does nothing to ruin the current voluntary military service but rather improves it giving it a greater pool from which to promote draftees.

Further, let's never forget that it wasn't democrats who gave high school seniors the fear of their lives by invading two countries and under supplying and under stocking them.  If Dem's are so "SOFT ON TERRORISM" then those draftees have nothing to worry about, right?  Well, I better correct myself...they do have to worry, they have the whole fucking world wanting to kill americans thanks to a certain murderous retarded cowboy.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-20 10:43:38)

Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6980|Eastern PA
It's a good way to call the administration's bluff regarding the calls for more troops in Iraq. Especially those like McCain that advocate for 50k+ additional troops without putting forth any plan as to where these forces are coming from.

It's playing politics, but no more so than McCain's (and to a lesser extent the Bush administration) proposals for phantom troops.

I have a particular hatred for John McCain in particular on this issue due to his performance in the Armed Services Committee wherein he tried to get an answer as to whether or not more (or less) troops are needed in Iraq without noting that the uniformed leadership cannot advocate anything outside the bounds of administration policy. It was disingenuity defined. I hope this serves to eradicate this kind of unrealism and lack of seriousness on this issue.
grobmobularb
Banned
+3|6629
Politicians are all scum...

You guys like that? I just summed up the entire political system in one sentence!!!! Yay for me.

Last edited by grobmobularb (2006-11-20 10:57:23)

KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|6939|Dayton, Ohio
Hey, if you are going to do a draft, why not just do required military service for all like Isreal?  That sounds like a fair approach right?  But make sure you are Politically correct and require everyone to server dispite capabilities.  Everyone is equal.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Hey, if you are going to do a draft, why not just do required military service for all like Isreal?  That sounds like a fair approach right?  But make sure you are Politically correct and require everyone to server dispite capabilities.  Everyone is equal.
Yep, that's even better.  Compulsory military service like probably a majority of countries do today.  Why are we afraid of war with China?  Because they have a massive army?  And why do they have a massive army?? Because of compulsive service..i think.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

IRONCHEF wrote:

Well, I better correct myself...they do have to worry, they have the whole fucking world wanting to kill americans thanks to a certain murderous retarded cowboy.
that teddy roosevelt was on bloodthirsty toothy bitch. at least i guess you mean him, you couldn't possibly be talking about bush since we've been the target of terrorists and dictators for 3 decades before he was elected.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-20 11:08:58)

sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6876|InGerLand
what do you mean "already" you thought they would wait a year before they did anything? :-S
Fen321
Member
+54|6756|Singularity
ummm one quick reminder for those that think politicians should stay out of "conflicts" i do hope you realize that those conflicts arise out of lack of political understanding between two sides or more then you get the disagreement then the call to arms

That's  why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good. - ATG

Appear to be losing your just in denial....haha appear that's classic i guess controlling a couple football field size plots of land in Baghdad was the Republican's plan for success, while to be honest i doubt the Democrats will be able to save anyone in this pointless war.

Once again i must say that the US military is INCAPABLE of democratizing a country, democracy is not exportable.
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6933|Belgium

IRONCHEF wrote:

I don't get it.  What's wrong with Rangel's idea?  Also, how is this a case of "Democrats at it already" as usual?  lol  "A" democrat, who's always been "pro-draft" is just saying what he's said all along, and he's right.  Having a greater pool of soldiers is needed.  This does nothing to ruin the current voluntary military service but rather improves it giving it a greater pool from which to promote draftees.

Further, let's never forget that it wasn't democrats who gave high school seniors the fear of their lives by invading two countries and under supplying and under stocking them.  If Dem's are so "SOFT ON TERRORISM" then those draftees have nothing to worry about, right?  Well, I better correct myself...they do have to worry, they have the whole fucking world wanting to kill americans thanks to a certain murderous retarded cowboy.
+1 to you.

But the esteemed member of Congress is wrong when he claims "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."

The sons (and daughters) of members of Congress or the administration will likely NOT serve in a regular army, navy, air force or marine unit, where chance is they are going to fight someone's war, but they will likely serve in the National Guard or some other service.

What did the esteemed president Mr. GWB did during his time in 'service', while troops were sent to Vietnam? Oh yeah, he learned to fly and stayed home, 'defending the American homeland', thanks to daddy's friends.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
Woohoo!  Take a look at THIS!  Looks like those Dems turned down Rangel's request, again, to have the draft reinstated.   And you all got worried for nothing! lol
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7026

ATG wrote:

That's why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good.
Classic. Its the dems fault Iraq is going badly. Get a grip on reality
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

BN wrote:

ATG wrote:

That's why we appear to be losing in Iraq, it's   because of assholes like Kerry would rather lose a few thousand troops and have us look like morons than have the republicans look good.
Classic. Its the dems fault Iraq is going badly. Get a grip on reality
lol, yeah.  that's funny.  Kerry "botched a joke" that wasn't even pointed at soldiers..but because they're desperate, they say "Yeah, Kerry insulted all the troops because he doesn't even like them!  He's happy they're dying! Muahahahahaaa!"  Yeah, love hearing that asinine shit.  never mind the voting records of the majority of republicans that do NOT support the troops and the fact that Dems overwhelmingly supported the troops more than Repbublicans....  Kerry's botched joke is the clincher...
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7030|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:

The fact of the matter is that an insufficient number of troops are and always have been stationed in Iraq for the carrying out of the task they are/were purported to be performing after the fall of Saddam.  The number of troops required would have had to be enough to administer the kind of police state ATG talks of, the kind of police state that Saddam was adept at administering - the kind that silenced dissent. The fact of the matter is that it was always going to be unfeasible to send the requisite number of troops to carry out the 'task' given that this was a war of choice that a vocal voting minority (now majority) vehemently opposed. The US just proved that they couldn't do it in actual, military and political terms - exactly like what happened in Vietnam.
At the same time, you have to give the US at least some kudos for not getting completely sucked down the "just a few more troops...that's right...a few more...ah, that hits the spot...more" trap that was Vietnam.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard