As I was packing this morning, there was some newstalk on with Charlie Rangel. I was not listening closely, but it seemed to me that he was proposing a military draft.

I hope there is more to it (or much less) than that. why would the people who have been arguing for pullout for years suddenly want a draft.

FTR, I am against a draft. Period. It is nothing more than legalized, albeit temporary, slavery. People who wish to serve, I am proud of them and respect them. Those who don't, shouldn't be forced.

This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.

dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.

How does he explain the fact that about 90% of troops vote Republican?

RebelKev Wrote:

dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.

How does he explain the fact that about 90% of troops vote Republican?

what does that have to do with anything?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:what does that have to do with anything?

A lot. Think about your question. Democrats, these days, aren't likely to serve. They have become ensconced in hedonism. Republican families throughout this country are already seeing their kids go to war.

....and, as a soldier, I feel this is bull****. If they don't want to be there, I DAMN sure don't want them watching my back. Rangel is an idiot. It's this "out of touchness" that will destroy the DNC. I guess you think you have a mandate, though. All of the protest votes got the Dems elected.

Please, do me a favor, raise taxes, institute a draft, and increase government spending on national healthcare. Seriously, please do this.

90%..... have any stats to back that up.

Machiavelli Wrote:90%..... have any stats to back that up.

I have this rag:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-2...383722.php

Quote:Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.

This says 73%. I was just throwing out a number. I know its high. Very high.

dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.

He didn't say upper class. I think what he really means is "white". If there was a draft, I agree it should cut across class and race lines. But we are talking about a volunteer army now. There is only one kind of soldier - the kind that says "I will".

Maybe a disproportionate percentage of military volunteers come from the lower economic classes, but the same can be said of Kia drivers. Many poorer kids see the military as a way to start their lives in the right direction. I know a lot of kids from around here who have made the military a career. Why take away an opportunity from a poorer kid by taking his place with a kid that doesn't want to be there?

He realized that this has no chance in he!! of passing. He's just trying to make a point that the support for wars without diplomacy would drop if it were their sons or themselves on the line. That being said, it's a waste of time and money to promote this when there is work to be done.

As one of his points on the need for a draft, he mentioned the need for additional troops. does that mean all the anti-war and pull-out was just lies, just what they had to say to get elected, like their anti-corruption rhetoric?

That a draft would lessen support for wars is just BS. It's one of those things that you would think would work that way,but it doesn't. I lived through the Viet Nam draft era. Didn't work that way then, won't work that way now.

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:90%..... have any stats to back that up.

I have this rag:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-2...383722.php

Quote:Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.

This says 73%. I was just throwing out a number. I know its high. Very high.

werent you the one giving me a hard time for quoting the army times?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:werent you the one giving me a hard time for quoting the army times?

...which is why I called it a rag. The military doesn't do studies on who votes for whom. It has better things to do. I go on my own personal experience and the first link I found, which was the Army Times. I've been deployed many times. I've been to the field even more times. I've spent my time in the motor pool recovering equipment after field exercises. I've also been in many units. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that most in the military are going to vote for those that support them....which are generally Conservatives.

BTW, there's a reason the Gore Camp was trying to get military absentee ballots thrown out in Florida in '00.

It is what it is.

This has absolutely nothing to do with which party gets more military votes.

Rangel isn't talking about the average, republican kid from everytown U.S.A. that makes the decision to serve. He's talking about the ultra elite-class kid who went to all the private boarding schools who would normally be nowhere near the front lines.

The upper-class prep school kids start getting thrown in there, (and start getting killed and maimed), and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.

dwr0109 Wrote:This has absolutely nothing to do with which party gets more military votes.

Rangel isn't talking about the average, republican kid from everytown U.S.A. that makes the decision to serve. He's talking about the ultra elite-class kid who went to all the private boarding schools who would normally be nowhere near the front lines.

The upper-class prep school kids start getting thrown in there, (and start getting killed and maimed), and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.

So, it's getting back at all those rich people. I see. Now, if the ones in it right now were forced into the military, you'd have an argument. They aren't, and you don't.

BTW, the last LT I had graduated from Brown. His father was also a multi-millionaire in the banking industry in Connecticut.

Quote:and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.

....and it didn't matter for Vietnam and Korea. You are assuming this was a war we could have done without. I disagree. Most conservatives disagree. Many Democrats....again.....disagree. Rangel is a damn fool. The draft isn't coming back, so you can stop your bitching about the evil rich.

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.

....and it didn't matter for Vietnam and Korea. You are assuming this was a war we could have done without. I disagree. Most conservatives disagree. Many Democrats....again.....disagree. Rangel is a damn fool. The draft isn't coming back, so you can stop your bitching about the evil rich.

I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.

JTiger Wrote:I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.

Would the intel have changed? Tell me, do you normally quarterback on Monday morning? This intel was examined by not only the President, but the Senate Intel Committee and it's house counterpart as well. There is no "Rovian" conspiracy. Look at the history going back to the mid-90s.

Here's what our president said about Saddam Hussein:

Quote:Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

More at the Source Link

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.

Would the intel have changed? Tell me, do you normally quarterback on Monday morning? This intel was examined by not only the President, but the Senate Intel Committee and it's house counterpart as well. There is no "Rovian" conspiracy. Look at the history going back to the mid-90s.

FACT: there was no "yellow cake" obtained from Niger

FACT: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. no matter how much Cheney wants us to believe it.

Those are the facts, do you dispute them?

They had bad intel and some sources say that the bad intel was cherry picked by the president.