Charlie Rangel: Bring back the draft

JLam

Proud Skepkid Parent
JLam
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
4,149
Do we have a "Smack hand on forehead" smiley?

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

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.
Click to expand...
This is pointless, stupid, pointless and stupid and pointless and also stupid and pointless and stupid. It's a political game, it will go nowhere, and accomplish nothing but making democrats look like total morons.

I was so happy that the democrats won...now they're not even officially in power and they're acting like idiots.

I'm so pissed right now.
 
The Republicans deserved to lose.

I'm just not sure the Democrats deserved to win.



Both sides appear to be taking the position that the other is so bad, they don't have to be good. Although each side has a point, one has to lose.


I wish a viable 3rd party would start. With the voters unhappy with both of the major parties, this might be a good opportunity for it.
 
JLam said:
Do we have a "Smack hand on forehead" smiley?

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

This is pointless, stupid, pointless and stupid and pointless and also stupid and pointless and stupid. It's a political game, it will go nowhere, and accomplish nothing but making democrats look like total morons.

I was so happy that the democrats won...now they're not even officially in power and they're acting like idiots.

I'm so pissed right now.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
OK, so long as all persons are subject to the lottery, unlike the current sexist selective service system, and the inherent penalty for failure to register applies equally, go for it. Let's see who salutes this flag when it goes up the pole. :rolleyes:

*Predicts crickets chirping on Capitol Hill*

The odds of getting Congress to back this are low. Successful implementation of this ensures the 2008 election goes to the GOP. The libertarians, Libertarians, and paleoconservatives will likel swing vote the Dems into infamous penury.

Even if such a bill passes both House and Senate, veto will be used by GWB, if for no other reason than it would make him look good.

DR
 
It's a stunt. Rangel introduces the same bring-back-the-draft-so-politicians-won't-start-wars legislation every couple of years. It has zero chance of passing.

Which is not to say a draft cannot happen at some point in the next few years; but if/when that happens, the rationale will be to win the war, not to give pause to future wars.
 
Cleon said:
It's a stunt. Rangel introduces the same bring-back-the-draft-so-politicians-won't-start-wars legislation every couple of years. It has zero chance of passing.

Which is not to say a draft cannot happen at some point in the next few years; but if/when that happens, the rationale will be to win the war, not to give pause to future wars.
Click to expand...
I was not going to address his fallacious rationale for the draft's political utility. The historic track record (back to the Civil War drafts) argues against it. The scenario is more likely to fit your succinctly framed point than his one point, flawed justification.

Posturing for fifty, Alex. :p

*whistles*

Barkeep, get Cleon an ice cold beer. :cool:

DR
 
Cleon said:
It's a stunt. Rangel introduces the same bring-back-the-draft-so-politicians-won't-start-wars legislation every couple of years. It has zero chance of passing.

Which is not to say a draft cannot happen at some point in the next few years; but if/when that happens, the rationale will be to win the war, not to give pause to future wars.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that it's a stunt. It's just that it's such an obvious, blatant, in-your-face stunt that he and everyone else knows has a snowball's chance of passing. Why bother? When there are so many other important things to worry about, why bother?

It really makes me angry.
 
One very strange thing this disaster of a war has done for me is to make me reconsider the all-volunteer military. In a way, the situation we have now undercuts our democracy, because swath of military personnel in our society barely cuts across segments that have real economic and political power. That is, the people who might have cared enough to take a close look at why we were about to enter into an optional war, and then how that war was conducted, didn't actually have any personal stake by virtue of sons in uniform. This is the flip-side of the late Milton Friedman's theories of maximum personal liberty. He was a major proponent of ending the draft in the 70's. But with a conscript military, would the country have ever let Bush go to war on such a flimsy case? Would the Congress have willingly ceded its power to declare war? (Well, they did in Vietnam, so who knows.)

Thus we find ourselves in a catastrophic military adventure, with the country never having been geared up to fight to win, and our defense capabilities severely depleted. I now consider a conscript military to be a serious option.
 
Rengal is an idiot. He has been pushinmg the draft idea for years. It isn't new and it isn't the whole Democrats.

Vietnam has proved the draft don't work.
 
hgc said:
. This is the flip-side of the late Milton Friedman's theories of maximum personal liberty. He was a major proponent of ending the draft in the 70's. But with a conscript military, would the country have ever let Bush go to war on such a flimsy case? Would the Congress have willingly ceded its power to declare war? (Well, they did in Vietnam, so who knows.).
Click to expand...
You answered your own question. Congress let us go to Vietnam because of the "domino" effect. We ended up beating communism with superior economics, not superior at getting into never ending conflicts.
 
firecoins said:
Rengal is an idiot. He has been pushinmg the draft idea for years. It isn't new and it isn't the whole Democrats.

Vietnam has proved the draft don't work.
Click to expand...
I don't assume that's what Vietnam proved. I think it proved that fighting wars of occupation against hostile local populations doesn't work, unless you're willing to completely subjugate and colonize the territory. Do you think that Vietnam would have worked better with an all-volunteer military?
 
hgc said:
I don't assume that's what Vietnam proved. I think it proved that fighting wars of occupation against hostile local populations doesn't work, unless you're willing to completely subjugate and colonize the territory. Do you think that Vietnam would have worked better with an all-volunteer military?
Click to expand...
No I think the military was worse for being a draft military, for having many people who didn't want to be there. A volunteer army would not have done much better but would have been more motivated. The US military itself didn't do that bad in Vietnam, from a military point of view, just didn't win it politically.
 
This whole Rangel posturing would not have been necessary had Congress not cowardly ceded its power to declare war to the President. Let's go back to being Constitutional and force Congress to vote "yea" or "nay" on war.

That is what made me mad, not this stunt so much.

Lurker
 
firecoins said:
No I think the military was worse for being a draft military, for having many people who didn't want to be there. A volunteer army would not have done much better but would have been more motivated. The US military itself didn't do that bad in Vietnam, from a military point of view, just didn't win it politically.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right that the US Military didn't do badly in Vietnam; that it was a political failure -- in deciding to fight an unwinnable contest. But I have to wonder, are the active service volunteers who signed up before Iraq really any happier about their lot than conscripts would be? They sure didn't expect to be fighting a losing war and being rotated repeatedly into combat. That goes double for Guard/Reserve troops. My point isn't that Iraq is won or lost based on a volunteer vs conscript military, but rather based on whether it's winnable to start with and if it's fought to win. My point about the conscript military is that without it, we have no mechanism to beef up our military manpower to levels necessary to defend our true interests (critical situation right now) and an insufficient stake by the politically powerful to use our sons and daughters judiciously in military adventures.
 
Funny thing... My father was a fervent Jesse Helms Republican. So of course I had the least respect for his political views. But I can remember in the early 80's, he was saying we should return to the draft. I found his position to be both surprising and incomprehensible, other than that he had been a volunteer in WWII. I wish I had questioned him more closely at the time.
 
hgc said:
I think it proved that fighting wars of occupation against hostile local populations doesn't work, unless you're willing to completely subjugate and colonize the territory.
Click to expand...

Thats not exactly how vietnam worked
 
Oops. Sorry.

Thought this was a Charlie's Angel's thread. Damn eyes o' mine.

Moving on...
 
Rangel is officially the dumbest politician on the planet. Youth turn out to vote in record numbers for the Democrats because they don't support the war, and he drops this legislation out again publicly before they even take office.

"Thanks for your vote, kids! Through your support, we've swept back into power. As a demonstration of my gratitude, I'd like to pass this law to force you at gun point to kill or be killed on foreign soil in the very war your vote was a referendum against."
 
delphi_ote said:
Rangel is officially the dumbest politician on the planet. Youth turn out to vote in record numbers for the Democrats because they don't support the war, and he drops this legislation out again publicly before they even take office.

"Thanks for your vote, kids! Through your support, we've swept back into power. As a demonstration of my gratitude, I'd like to pass this law to force you at gun point to kill or be killed on foreign soil in the very war your vote was a referendum against."
Click to expand...
Killing people in foreign countries isn't as bad as you try to make it sound. :cool:

DR
 
Cleon said:
It's a stunt. Rangel introduces the same bring-back-the-draft-so-politicians-won't-start-wars legislation every couple of years. It has zero chance of passing.

Which is not to say a draft cannot happen at some point in the next few years; but if/when that happens, the rationale will be to win the war, not to give pause to future wars.
Click to expand...
That's not his only motivation as I understand it:
NY Times said:
Rep Charles B Rangel Op-Ed article calls for reinstatement of draft in light of possibility of war against Iraq; says if country is going to send people to war, governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice, with people of all economic backgrounds shouldering burden equally; believes that those trumpeting war would be more circumspect if their children were to be placed in harm's way and might bring about greater willingness to work out situation peacefully
Click to expand...
This page contains only the above abstract -- no need to click.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom