back to the draft

[TragicMonkey]

The really sad part of this is that the very best, responsible, and loyal of our young are the ones to voluntarily shoulder the burden of freedom.

Then the liberal idiots of this same generation use that freedom in irresponsible and hedonistic ways while rhetorically pissing on the very people who make their freedoms possible.

Sad, sad, sad....
-z

Um, and what are you saying about the likelihood/non-likelihood of a draft, with this? It seems more of a polemic against "liberals" for unspecified sins and "rhetorical pissing". Is opposition to the draft automatically considered a personal condemnation of the military? Or are you saying that the only good, responsible, loyal people are in the military already? That would seem to mean the ideal America would have the entire population be in the military...which seems somewhat impractical.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Well, let's see...
1) Democrat Charles Rangel introduces a bill in the House to reinstate the draft;
2) Democrat Fritz Hollings introduces a similar bill in the Senate to reinstate the draft;
3) Democrat John Kerry says we need 40,000 more troops in Iraq to do the job properly;
4) Republican George W. Bush says in no uncertain terms, that he will oppose reinstatment of the draft;
5) House Republicans force a vote on Rangel's bill and make sure it gets crushed flatter than that squirrel I saw on the road this morning.

Now why should I be so silly as to think the Democrats want to reinstate the draft, just because they introduced two bills to reinstate the draft?

Rangel stated in no uncertain terms that the reason for his bill was not to introduce the draft, but to force a debate in the Congress about how on Earth we are going to fulfill our military obligations with most of the Army currently committed in one way or another to Iraq.

The Republicans forced a vote so that the issue could be disposed of without debate, because what the hell, they're in charge -- who needs a friggin' debate?

And still we don't know how Bush intends to continue the fight in Iraq and also maintain readiness for other fights that may pop up.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

And still we don't know how Bush intends to continue the fight in Iraq and also maintain readiness for other fights that may pop up.

The same way he'll reduce the debt by cutting taxes, I imagine.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Rangel stated in no uncertain terms that the reason for his bill was not to introduce the draft, but to force a debate

I.E., he was (select one or more):

• lying
• kidding
• deliberately wasting everyone's time
• trying to score cheap political points

in the Congress about how on Earth we are going to fulfill our military obligations with most of the Army currently committed in one way or another to Iraq.

Evidently, he hadn't spoken to Kodiak (see above).

The Republicans forced a vote so that the issue could be disposed of without debate, because what the hell, they're in charge -- who needs a friggin' debate?

No, the Republicans disposed of it without a debate because it was a transparent ploy to embarrass the administration and get some votes for Kerry in November by starting unfounded rumors that Bush was going to reinstate the draft. If you recall the discussion here, quite a few normally skeptical people bought into it.

And still we don't know how Bush intends to continue the fight in Iraq and also maintain readiness for other fights that may pop up.

Again, see Kodiak's link above. And we can always pull our troops out of Europe, which, as Victor Davis Hanson explains, is a good idea on many levels:

Precisely because we protect Europe, Europe will need ever more protecting, and will grow ever more weak. And because it will need the United States to defend it, it will ever more resent the United States. Without a real menace like the Soviet Union on its borders, Europe will find ever more outlets to vent cheaply and without consequences — at precisely the time it is most threatened by terrorists and rogue states.

In contrast, the withdrawal of Americans throughout Old Europe — sober analysts can adjudicate a remnant figure of about 30,000 or so, down from our present numbers in Spain, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Greece — will encourage Europe to rearm or face the consequences of institutionalized appeasement. That radical step — despite popular misconceptions that it is either impossible or unwise — is more a good thing than a bad one.

That way we will not be dealing with a spiteful teenager any longer, but a mature adult partner. And if — after we leave — Germany invades France or Poland a third time, then there is simply no answer to the European problem anyway. Instead we must trust in our confidence that Europeans are wise enough to settle their own affairs peacefully. Perhaps socialists who won't fight much abroad at least won't be likely to fight among themselves either.

 

[DaChew]

Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Rangel stated in no uncertain terms that the reason for his bill was not to introduce the draft, but to force a debate in the Congress about how on Earth we are going to fulfill our military obligations with most of the Army currently committed in one way or another to Iraq.

The Republicans forced a vote so that the issue could be disposed of without debate, because what the hell, they're in charge -- who needs a friggin' debate?

And still we don't know how Bush intends to continue the fight in Iraq and also maintain readiness for other fights that may pop up.

What Rangel stated and what his actual intentions were is certainly open to debate. If he really wanted nothing more than to start a debate about how we were going to fulfill our military obligations then why didn't he write a bill asking to triple the compensation and benefits of personnel? Why the drastic jump to a debate over the draft? Especially considering that nobody would support it and he must have known that. No, even a casual observer can see he meant to instill fear among parents and young voters. The rather well coordinated internet email spamcaign shows that this was way more than an effort to mearly start a debate.
The Republicans forced a vote on the issue to make the Democrats look bad and it worked. There is no reason to waste time in congress debating something that exactly nobody actually supports.

It seems to me that it would be far less expensive and more effective to simply increase the compensation and benefits of military personnel if we need to increase enlistment.

 

[clk]

I wouldn't know, I have him on ignore. He stalks me from thread to thread to posting that same thread. He doesn't understand what "this is just speculation" means apparently and when Brown stated that nobody would reinstate the draft because its a political death sentence, he must have missed me saying Brown hit the nail on the head.

I'm not sure why he got his panties all in a bunch over that thread. All I know is he needs to get a life and stop thinking he has some gotcha he can throw in my face to derail my threads. Of course, having him on ignore helps but then people respond to him. ::cough::

Corplinx doesn't seem to understand that this is a skeptic's forum. You can't go around calling someone a woo woo for floating conspiracy theories and then not expect to be called a woo woo when you do the same thing. Apparently anyone who calls him on his hypocrisy and BS is automatically a 'stalker'.
Corplinx refuses to answer two simple questions, because he knows what the answers are...
1. Kerry had already stated his detailed plan for Iraq. Now what do you think is more likely:
a) That the plan he unveiled is actually fake and that Kerry has another secret plan for Iraq that only the Democrats know about which involves calling up the reserve and guard, and he is now sending out subliminal messages in his speeches so that he can shift the blame to Bush when he is elected.

or

b) Kerry is engaging in scare mongering.

corplinx seems to believe that a) is as likely as b). A sign that he is a true woo woo.

2. Suppose I started a thread titled "Bush's Plan, Repeal the First Amendment", and in the thread, I state:

"I have been thinking long and hard about Bush's latest tactic. He will go out and declare that anyone who criticizes him is giving aid to the enemy (indirectly through his proxies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer)

At first, I thought this was just scare mongering. Cheney from Washington D.C. started the original scare and has fed the whispering campaign since its inception. However, now it seems pretty clear what Bush's plan for the constitution is.

After winning, Bush will call up a special session of Congress and will repeal the first amendment. He will say its Kerry's fault, that the Democrats were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that whoever took office had do it because Kerry f'ed up so badly.

In other words, Bush is just softening the blow by putting these feelers out early.

Perhaps the Bush camp is just doing simple scaremongering. However, without their acknowledgement of it I think the razor cuts either way about why they are doing it."

Furthermore, suppose I provide no evidence to back up my assertion that Bush is going to repeal the first amendment. Would you say that my post was plausible speculation based on facts, or just conspiracy theory?

Notice he put me on ignore....a convenient way to dodge people who try to call you on BS. What a coward.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

What Rangel stated and what his actual intentions were is certainly open to debate. If he really wanted nothing more than to start a debate about how we were going to fulfill our military obligations then why didn't he write a bill asking to triple the compensation and benefits of personnel? Why the drastic jump to a debate over the draft? Especially considering that nobody would support it and he must have known that. No, even a casual observer can see he meant to instill fear among parents and young voters. The rather well coordinated internet email spamcaign shows that this was way more than an effort to mearly start a debate.
The Republicans forced a vote on the issue to make the Democrats look bad and it worked. There is no reason to waste time in congress debating something that exactly nobody actually supports.

It seems to me that it would be far less expensive and more effective to simply increase the compensation and benefits of military personnel if we need to increase enlistment.

I think Rangel wanted to start a debate about whether we had enough troops to fulfill our obligations, and that's why he didn't bring up a bill about compensation.

Oh, I'm so sorry that you think Rangel wanted to instill fear. I guess that's what you call it when Democrats call attention to pressing matters of national concern in an election year. When Dick Cheney implies that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a nuclear attack in an American city, that's ... instilling confidence in Bush! Get a grip.

And kudos to the Republicans for making the Democrats look bad. It's much more pleasing than having open debate in Congress about troop levels, isn't it?

Also nice to see the armed forces are beating their recruiting targets. Does that mean that those recruiting targets are sufficient to meet our obligations. Wouldn't it be nice to hear our national leaders discussing it?

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

I think Rangel wanted to start a debate about whether we had enough troops to fulfill our obligations, and that's why he didn't bring up a bill about compensation.

Oh, I'm so sorry that you think Rangel wanted to instill fear. I guess that's what you call it when Democrats call attention to pressing matters of national concern in an election year. When Dick Cheney implies that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a nuclear attack in an American city, that's ... instilling confidence in Bush! Get a grip.

And kudos to the Republicans for making the Democrats look bad. It's much more pleasing than having open debate in Congress about troop levels, isn't it?

Also nice to see the armed forces are beating their recruiting targets. Does that mean that those recruiting targets are sufficient to meet our obligations. Wouldn't it be nice to hear our national leaders discussing it?

You've got it all wrong. Rangel is not trying to start a debate, he is a traitor. Anyone who criticizes the President is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The Republican leaders said so themselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45672-2004Sep23.html

 

[DaChew]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

I think Rangel wanted to start a debate about whether we had enough troops to fulfill our obligations, and that's why he didn't bring up a bill about compensation.

A bill about compensation would have done exactly that. A draft is obviously not the only way to increase enlistment. Increasing compensation and benefits would attract greater numbers of people to volunteer. Rangel must know this but he chose to write a bill reinstating the draft instead. One must wonder why.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

A bill about compensation would have done exactly that. A draft is obviously not the only way to increase enlistment. Increasing compensation and benefits would attract greater numbers of people to volunteer. Rangel must know this but he chose to write a bill reinstating the draft instead. One must wonder why.

Um, publicity? Had anyone heard of the guy before he did this? I think his goal was to draw attention to the war, and the possible costs of it. Seems to have worked, so how stupid was he? We're discussing his bill months later.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

I think Rangel wanted to start a debate about whether we had enough troops to fulfill our obligations, and that's why he didn't bring up a bill about compensation.

Oh. Well, then why didn't he sponsor a bill to withdraw troops from Europe and redeploy them? Who are we defending Germany from these days? Luxembourg?

If he wanted to start a debate about troop levels, why didn't he send a letter to the editor of the New York Times, where it could become part of a lively exchange, instead of introducing a bill in Congress, where it could lie stagnant in committee for months?

Sorry, hgc, this bird won't fly. This was an ugly piece of political grandstanding whose primary - maybe even sole - purpose was to undermine the Iraq war effort. Don't pretend this was some kind of noble cause on Rangel's part. If he's so concerned about troop levels, how come I don't hear anything from him about them since his bill got fed into the paper shredder?

 

[DaChew]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Um, publicity? Had anyone heard of the guy before he did this?

Yes, actually he's one of the more cranky members of Congress and this isn't the first time he's grandstanded.

I think his goal was to draw attention to the war, and the possible costs of it.

That's not what hgc says and that's not what Rangel apparently said. Even if it was, is writing inflamatory bills that have absolutely no chance of being passed really the way to start a debate? That sounds a bit like trolling to me.

Seems to have worked, so how stupid was he?

Considering that it blew up in his face?

[/B]

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Oh. Well, then why didn't he sponsor a bill to withdraw troops from Europe and redeploy them? Who are we defending Germany from these days? Luxembourg?

If he wanted to start a debate about troop levels, why didn't he send a letter to the editor of the New York Times, where it could become part of a lively exchange, instead of introducing a bill in Congress, where it could lie stagnant in committee for months?

Sorry, hgc, this bird won't fly. This was an ugly piece of political grandstanding whose primary - maybe even sole - purpose was to undermine the Iraq war effort. Don't pretend this was some kind of noble cause on Rangel's part. If he's so concerned about troop levels, how come I don't hear anything from him about them since his bill got fed into the paper shredder?

Maybe he doesn't think we should withdraw troops from Europe. I don't know, frankly. He's published many columns in the NY Times over the years, but that's not the same as provoking a debate, including committee meetings with witnesses, in the halls of Congress. Reasonable people can disagree about whether his was a noble or grandstanding gesture, certainly, but to claim that his intent was to undermine the war effort really won't fly. You sound a lot like the criticism-is-betrayal crowd.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: back to the draft

.....Scumbag Democrat has the flag upside down

Isnt that the signal for distress?


As for the recruiting:


"Although the specter of a draft was raised during the recent presidential campaign, Pentagon figures indicate the services have been able to maintain force levels through recruiting new troops and retention of those already in the service."


If they are recruting so well then whats with the force retention and reserve usage?? Are they "maintaining" the peacetime levels. Levels that are now too low being that we are in wartime.

I think they're playing with the stats so as to make the situation look better than it is. Typical MO of out government.

 

[csense]

Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Isnt that the signal for distress?

Yes, and if the Democratic party were a floundering ship at sea poised to sink at any moment, threatening not only the welfare of those willing participants on board, but anyone who comes in contact with...........wait, I think you're right, it is a distress signal!

Oh well, in the words of Captain Kirk in the movie "The Undiscovered Country," and in response to Captain Spock's plea for the distressed:

Captain Spock : "Jim, there is an historic opportunity here."
Captain James T. Kirk : "Don't believe them. Don't trust them."
Captain Spock : "They're dying."
Captain James T. Kirk : "Let them die!"

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh. I thought the title of the thread was Back Door Draft.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-10-08/pols_naked9.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904X.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10202004.html

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Maybe he doesn't think we should withdraw troops from Europe. I don't know, frankly. He's published many columns in the NY Times over the years,

...arguing for reinstatement of the draft? When?

but that's not the same as provoking a debate, including committee meetings with witnesses, in the halls of Congress.

The purpose of committee hearings is to collect information for purposes of writing and passing legislation. You hold the hearings addressing an issue, then, based on what you've learned, you propose legislation to address the problem.

Maybe if Rangel had held hearings on the advisability of reinstating the draft, he would have found out all kinds of interesting things, such as the success of recruiting and the fact that we have tens of thousands of troops in Europe protecting Belgium from invasion by The Netherlands.

But, no. Rangel doesn't need no steenking hearings, because he already has his answer.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether his was a noble or grandstanding gesture, certainly, but to claim that his intent was to undermine the war effort really won't fly. You sound a lot like the criticism-is-betrayal crowd.

Let me quote the man himself, then. CNN link:

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

Do you see anything in there about reinstating the draft because our troop strength is dangerously low?

Me neither. I invite you to retract your "criticism-is-betrayal" comment.

 

[SlippyToad]

Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

Well, let's see...
1) Democrat Charles Rangel introduces a bill in the House to reinstate the draft;
2) Democrat Fritz Hollings introduces a similar bill in the Senate to reinstate the draft;
3) Democrat John Kerry says we need 40,000 more troops in Iraq to do the job properly;
4) Republican George W. Bush says in no uncertain terms, that he will oppose reinstatment of the draft;
5) House Republicans force a vote on Rangel's bill and make sure it gets crushed flatter than that squirrel I saw on the road this morning.

Now why should I be so silly as to think the Democrats want to reinstate the draft, just because they introduced two bills to reinstate the draft?

The same reason Republicans introduce bills like the Gay Marriage Ban. It's to force their opponents to record a vote in order to use it against them later on.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: back to the draft

The same reason Republicans introduce bills like the Gay Marriage Ban. It's to force their opponents to record a vote in order to use it against them later on.

That doesn't hold up, for at least three reasons:

1) Rangel didn't want a vote on the draft, complainng when the Republicans brought it up for a vote, that

"This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," he said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill." Only Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California voted for it.

Link (Rangel certainly knows his hypocrites...)

2) "...to record a vote in order to use it against them later on. " You're kidding, right? Since only two Democrats voted for it, who was going to use the vote later on? Did you read anywhere about Kerry blasting the Republicans for voting against reinstatment?

I didn't think so.

3) The gay marriage ban is actually an issue - the country is closely divided over whether gays should be allowed to marry. A vote on it is useful; your congressman has to say whether he approves or not, and take the consequences with the voters. Draft reinstatement is not an issue - nobody wants it. Rangel just brought it up as a bit of grandstanding because he opposed the Iraq war.