That didn't take long: Leading Democrat proposes reinstating draft...

[The Heretic]

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

He even plays the class card:

He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

Which from what I understand is not correct - but correct or not, they are volunteers, they at least had a choice whether to be in the military or not.

I respect our military, I respect those who have served and those who have been injured or died in service, whether draftee or not. However, I do not believe in a draft for two reasons:

1) Each person owns their own life. They do not owe any part of that life to any other person without voluntarily and knowingly entering into some kind of obligation to that end. Just existing and being in a country does not oblige anybody to service to that country regardless of what someone else does.

When a person serves in the military, when they work long hard hours for minimal pay, and/or risks injury, capture, torture, death - that is in part a gift to their country and their family. It is not something they owed. It wasn't a duty. It was a selfless gift. To say they owed that gift, minimizes the gift - downplays it.

A debt or duty paid is not a gift. A gift is something given voluntarily and without obligation. I served. In part because I wanted to help other people, in part because I wanted to help myself and my family. But I would avoid a draft and advise others to do the same.

2) I am not alone in saying that a conscripted military force is not desirable - most of the military, from the top of the Pentagon on down, feels the same way and has been saying that for decades. I needn't go into that reasoning, if you don't know the argument behind it, just Google it - a person would have had to have lived in a cave to not have heard at least some of reasoning behind that argument.

If we need a bigger military force, then put the money where our big mouths are and start paying for it with more money for its members. Forcing them into the military at low rates of pay is not honoring those who went before them, recognizing their effort and risk with more pay and benefits would go a little ways towards that goal though.

This is plain politics or pure stupidity, or a lot of both.

I have wondered about all the celebration going on after the democratic victory to win back the Congress. After all, most of the democrats voted for and supported the admin's policies abroad and at home. It wasn't until the winds shifted that their public opinions did also. Very few of them showed any real leadership in this regard - they were the weather vanes (and slow responding ones at that), not the leaders they should have been.

 

[Lasher]

Rangel is far from being a "leading" Democrat. He's a nut, and most people realize this.

He's been proposing this same thing for years. It's far from new.

 

[Wilben]

He's a senior Dem, technically not a leading one, unless you count heading the tax writing committee in the House.

 

[zipman]

Rangel has been saying that for years. His main point is using the draft as a deterent to politicians waging wars.

Personally I disagree with Rangel on a lot of issues.

 

[The Heretic]

Rangel is far from being a "leading" Democrat. He's a nut, and most people realize this.

He's been proposing this same thing for years. It's far from new.

"Influential", "senior", "leading" - these were words from the article or the Digg link to it. Whether they fit or not, that may be debatable. Whether his proposal is motivated by politics or stupidity, or both is debatable. Whether he is serious or just playing politics or not is debatable.

Whether the proposal is a good idea or not, is really not debatable. Although some may try to debate it, the majority of the USA would not want a draft, especially now. That is one reason why I think his proposal is a sign of stupidity on his part.

 

[Wilben]

"Influential", "senior", "leading" - these were words from the article or the Digg link to it. Whether they fit or not, that may be debatable. Whether his proposal is motivated by politics or stupidity, or both is debatable. Whether he is serious or just playing politics or not is debatable.

Whether the proposal is a good idea or not, is really not debatable. Although some may try to debate it, the majority of the USA would not want a draft, especially now. That is one reason why I think his proposal is a sign of stupidity on his part.

Yeah, he made the proposal a while back too. I wonder if he was up for re-election this past cycle. I kind of doubt it considering.

 

[Wrong Element]

Rangel has been saying that for years. His main point is using the draft as a deterent to politicians waging wars.

I believe that's true, but I think the call for the draft, while not totally sincere, might force some honest questions about whether or not our military can fulfill its numerous obligations with the size force we currently have. If we can't, then we either need to get more people somehow via a draft, or rethink the obligations.

 

[Lasher]

"Influential", "senior", "leading" - these were words from the article or the Digg link to it. Whether they fit or not, that may be debatable. Whether his proposal is motivated by politics or stupidity, or both is debatable. Whether he is serious or just playing politics or not is debatable.

Whether the proposal is a good idea or not, is really not debatable. Although some may try to debate it, the majority of the USA would not want a draft, especially now. That is one reason why I think his proposal is a sign of stupidity on his part.

His proposal is a sign of stupidity. Most people agree with this. That's why it garners so little attention when he brings it up again.

The only reason it's getting attention right now is that using Rangel was a part of the Republican Party's scare campaign leading up to the previous election. Now that the election is over, it's being re-used as part of the Republican Party's scare campaign leading up to the 2008 election.

No one takes it seriously, but the spinmeisters in Red want you to be scared by it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SquireCroker]

You guys don't understand irony much, do you? Betcha all thought Swift really want the Irish to eat their babies too.

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," he said.

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

Oh course he was; all Congressman run every two years.

Yeah, he made the proposal a while back too. I wonder if he was up for re-election this past cycle. I kind of doubt it considering.

 

[garbage can]

Rangel is far from being a "leading" Democrat. He's a nut, and most people realize this.

He's been proposing this same thing for years. It's far from new.

Well, he's the new chairman of the house ways and means committee.

 

[Lasher]

Well, he's the new chairman of the house ways and means committee.

He's still a nut.

 

[The Heretic]

He's still a nut.

A nut in power is a nut to be taken seriously - especially when he has a constituency who elects him. He may not have as much power as the nut in the White House, but he has power.

Do I think his proposal has much chance of success? Does he think it does? Probably not. But it never hurts to be proactive about such things.

 

[Ishmael]

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

He even plays the class card:

Which from what I understand is not correct - but correct or not, they are volunteers, they at least had a choice whether to be in the military or not.

I respect our military, I respect those who have served and those who have been injured or died in service, whether draftee or not. However, I do not believe in a draft for two reasons:

1) Each person owns their own life. They do not owe any part of that life to any other person without voluntarily and knowingly entering into some kind of obligation to that end. Just existing and being in a country does not oblige anybody to service to that country regardless of what someone else does.

When a person serves in the military, when they work long hard hours for minimal pay, and/or risks injury, capture, torture, death - that is in part a gift to their country and their family. It is not something they owed. It wasn't a duty. It was a selfless gift. To say they owed that gift, minimizes the gift - downplays it.

A debt or duty paid is not a gift. A gift is something given voluntarily and without obligation. I served. In part because I wanted to help other people, in part because I wanted to help myself and my family. But I would avoid a draft and advise others to do the same.

2) I am not alone in saying that a conscripted military force is not desirable - most of the military, from the top of the Pentagon on down, feels the same way and has been saying that for decades. I needn't go into that reasoning, if you don't know the argument behind it, just Google it - a person would have had to have lived in a cave to not have heard at least some of reasoning behind that argument.

If we need a bigger military force, then put the money where our big mouths are and start paying for it with more money for its members. Forcing them into the military at low rates of pay is not honoring those who went before them, recognizing their effort and risk with more pay and benefits would go a little ways towards that goal though.

This is plain politics or pure stupidity, or a lot of both.

I have wondered about all the celebration going on after the democratic victory to win back the Congress. After all, most of the democrats voted for and supported the admin's policies abroad and at home. It wasn't until the winds shifted that their public opinions did also. Very few of them showed any real leadership in this regard - they were the weather vanes (and slow responding ones at that), not the leaders they should have been.

This isn't new TSG. He tried it back in 2004.

It's a political tactic to inflame the masses. I guess he longs for the days of campus revolutions. <shrug>

Ishmael

 

[garbage can]

He's a senior Dem, technically not a leading one, unless you count heading the tax writing committee in the House.

He can do a lot of damage there................

 

[Ishmael]

He can do a lot of damage there................

Head of "Way and Means" is a seriously senior position. Especally now that Pelosi is weakened as leader.

Ishmael

 

[Borscht]

What's nuts about defending the US constitution ?

The second amendment clearly states that:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Basically, if you want to live in a free country get off your ass, get yourself armed, and fall in.

Of course, it'll never happen. America's rotten with chickenhawks, and the only thing those boys would have the guts to fight would be their call up papers.

Still, the idea's a good one.

 

[bare_pussy]

Rangel's NOT a nut. He's awesome. He's one of the few loud voices in Congress yelling for social justice.

Like posters have said, he believes the draft will deter political wars. When it's their children being shipped off, chances are they'd be a little more careful when they plan on invading the next country.

I think its a great idea, and frankly I believe he'd shedding light on an important issue - send your own kids over if you believe so strongly that this war is worth it.

and frankly, Murtha is pretty much the most powerful man in congress - screw Hoyer, Murtha can axe all funding on the war if he sees fit. What's Hoyer got? A title. Pelosi will be fine, I've heard zero chatter on the Hill about her lack of power after the leadership vote.

 

[Borscht]

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

He even plays the class card:

Which from what I understand is not correct - but correct or not, they are volunteers, they at least had a choice whether to be in the military or not.

I respect our military, I respect those who have served and those who have been injured or died in service, whether draftee or not. However, I do not believe in a draft for two reasons:

1) Each person owns their own life. They do not owe any part of that life to any other person without voluntarily and knowingly entering into some kind of obligation to that end. Just existing and being in a country does not oblige anybody to service to that country regardless of what someone else does.

When a person serves in the military, when they work long hard hours for minimal pay, and/or risks injury, capture, torture, death - that is in part a gift to their country and their family. It is not something they owed. It wasn't a duty. It was a selfless gift. To say they owed that gift, minimizes the gift - downplays it.

A debt or duty paid is not a gift. A gift is something given voluntarily and without obligation. I served. In part because I wanted to help other people, in part because I wanted to help myself and my family. But I would avoid a draft and advise others to do the same.

I disagree. Citizens have duties as well as rights.

I know that this is contrary to consumerist culture, which is hostile to the idea of citizenship and also to the virtues upon which citizenship is based.

But in less decadent cultures (from the ancient Greeks to Washington's boys) people understood that freedom is not free.

2) I am not alone in saying that a conscripted military force is not desirable - most of the military, from the top of the Pentagon on down, feels the same way and has been saying that for decades. I needn't go into that reasoning, if you don't know the argument behind it, just Google it - a person would have had to have lived in a cave to not have heard at least some of reasoning behind that argument.

If we need a bigger military force, then put the money where our big mouths are and start paying for it with more money for its members. Forcing them into the military at low rates of pay is not honoring those who went before them, recognizing their effort and risk with more pay and benefits would go a little ways towards that goal though.

It's true that 'one volunteer is better than ten pressed men'.

Even so, a Republic whose citizens are not prepared to fight for it is fucked anyway. Check out the correlation between Rome's increasing reliance on 'Security Contractors' and it's collapse.

 

[Ishmael]

What's nuts about defending the US constitution ?

The second amendment clearly states that:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Basically, if you want to live in a free country get off your ass, get yourself armed, and fall in.

Of course, it'll never happen. America's rotten with chickenhawks, and the only thing those boys would have the guts to fight would be their call up papers.

Still, the idea's a good one.

Basically you're full of shit. A misreading of the second amendment serves no ones purpose.

Now, what would the purpose of the chair of the 'Ways and Means' be in proposing such an idea? And how would he effect it?

Let's start with the 'means' he'd use. As chair of that committee he determines exactly what pork goes where. That should clear up where he might get the votes for this turkey.

As to the 'why?' That can get a little more complicated. Right now the military doesn't want, or need, a draft. With all of the incentives available to them they're making they're needs/quotas. But that's money. Approproiated monies and if someone like, oh, say, that chair of the Ways and Means, takes that money away, then the military will have to draft. And like all drafts, there will be exsemptions. What will they be?

I can tell you who they won't be. They won't be the high shcool drop outs or anyone else that can't pass the tests. It won't be the ignorant cannon fodder of WWI/Korea/Viet Nam. And it won't be the sons and daughters, yes daughters, of the political elite. It will be the sons and daughters of the middle class.

It's one way of seperating the 'apparatichik' from the peasants.

Ishmael

 

[bare_pussy]

FYI: he doesn't determine where pork goes. he's not on appropriations. We (as in people like my office) determine where earmarks go.

 

[Borscht]

Basically you're full of shit. A misreading of the second amendment serves no ones purpose.

Now, what would the purpose of the chair of the 'Ways and Means' be in proposing such an idea? And how would he effect it?

Let's start with the 'means' he'd use. As chair of that committee he determines exactly what pork goes where. That should clear up where he might get the votes for this turkey.

As to the 'why?' That can get a little more complicated. Right now the military doesn't want, or need, a draft. With all of the incentives available to them they're making they're needs/quotas. But that's money. Approproiated monies and if someone like, oh, say, that chair of the Ways and Means, takes that money away, then the military will have to draft. And like all drafts, there will be exsemptions. What will they be?

I can tell you who they won't be. They won't be the high shcool drop outs or anyone else that can't pass the tests. It won't be the ignorant cannon fodder of WWI/Korea/Viet Nam. And it won't be the sons and daughters, yes daughters, of the political elite. It will be the sons and daughters of the middle class.

It's one way of seperating the 'apparatichik' from the peasants.

Ishmael

So do you agree that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State or not ?

As to your second point, in societies as diverse as Imperial Britain and Israel, the draft was and is applied to all sections of society equally.

Do you really think that your own society is so much more corrupt than those two ?

 

[Ishmael]

FYI: he doesn't determine where pork goes. he's not on appropriations. We (as in people like my office) determine where earmarks go.

I stand corrected. But if the $$$ aren't there, it goes nowhere.

Who has appropriations after the first of the year?

Ishmael

 

[bare_pussy]

chair of approps is going to be Obey, i believe.

 

[The Heretic]

Rangel's NOT a nut. He's awesome. He's one of the few loud voices in Congress yelling for social justice.

Like posters have said, he believes the draft will deter political wars. When it's their children being shipped off, chances are they'd be a little more careful when they plan on invading the next country.

If you think people in power can't avoid having their children drafted and/or sent to the front, then you are very naive indeed and that is putting it kindly. People with such notions should not be in power, or vote for people in power with such ideas.

Nut or not, serious or not, politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes are politicians who are dangerous to the populace - because their constituency take them seriously. Playing with people's lives in this way for political gain, regardless of the goal, is not desirable in a leader.