Democrats Want to Draft Your Sons and Daughters!

[amicus]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230598,00.html

Rangel Calls for Reinstating Military Draft
Sunday, November 19, 2006


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....

...Rangel, incoming chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments...

..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..."

~~~~~~

That should please the left, social liberals and a whole host of social democrats.

Added to a left wing philosophy of raising taxes, limiting energy resources, controlling, regulating and taxing industry until they move out of the country, demanding Universal service for all young people, male and female under threat of incarceration for avoiding the draft...this just about rounds out the agenda for a now Democrat controlled Congress.

Happy now?


amicus...

 

[JamesSD]

"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."

Reading the article, it sounds like one loose cannon rather than a party policy.

All sorts of crazy bills get proposed by both sides every year. In particular, check out some of the proposed laws that come out of Utah... scary hilarious.

 

[Belegon]

Ami, you amuse me...you scare me sometimes, but mostly you amuse me...

 

[amicus]

Perhaps, JamesSD, perhaps just a crazy bill floated for one reason or another. But...from the Peace Corps days onwards, social democrats have advocated one or more ways to get their hands on the youth of the nation once they leave the conveyor belt social instruction in the public schools.

I suggest conscription is part and parcel of the over all agenda of the left and that you will hear more and more about 'mandatory universal public service', especially if the Democrat majority remains following the 2008 elections and if a Democrat sits in the White House.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well, Bel...always leave 'em laughing and wanting more...thas my story and I'm stickin' to it!

ami

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, and your problem with this is?

Cat

 

[amicus]

SeaCat]Okay, and your problem with this is?

Cat

[/I]

~~~~~~~

Assuming your question deals with the ethical nature of requiring universal public service from every child...you dare ask what MY objection is?

You come banging on my door and insist you are going to take my 18 year old off to do your bidding? Have your fucking head on a pole, friend.

amicus...

 

[TE999]

No sweat, ami.

Charlie's just blowin' smoke to get some face time. Media attention is like a whiff of oxygen to this guy. He knows his 'draft em' all' idea doesn't have a snowballs chance in a blast furnace of ever seeing the light of day.

Besides, I'd rather have five volunteers backin' me up than two dozen draftees. Been there and done that.

Lots more fun to come so buckle up, the donkey's pullin' the wagon now.

Peace.

Tom (TE999).

 

[Pure]

ami, do you favor there being a draft in a war vital to the nation's defense (e.g. during WWII) -where there are not enough volunteers?

 

[amicus]

Thanks TE999 and welcome!

amicus

 

[SeaCat]

[/I]

~~~~~~~

Assuming your question deals with the ethical nature of requiring universal public service from every child...you dare ask what MY objection is?

You come banging on my door and insist you are going to take my 18 year old off to do your bidding? Have your fucking head on a pole, friend.

amicus...

Ah but my friend,

My question is rhetorical, and yet it isn't.

I do not favor the draft, I never have. I would never force anyone to put forth the time, effort and sacrifice to serve their country.

Yet I do see serving as a duty, an obligation. Especialy if you wish to later in life be in a position of power where you can send our men and women into harms way.

So in my most humble of opinions, do not creat a draft. Instead make the right to vote, and to serve in a public function, (ie Congress, Senate or Presidency) dependant upon your willingness to sacrifice of yourself for the welfare of your nation and it's inhabitants.

Yes I know you will look upon this as lowbrowed, ignorant and yet somehow elitist. Yet does it not strike you, (Who if I recall correctly did serve,) as fair that those who have known the potential hell they are sending our youth into be the ones who do it? Is it not fair that those who are willing to sacrifice everything be the ones who decides if others have to make that sacrifice?

Cat

 

[amicus]

Only Empires, Dictatorships and Communist countries find it expedient to force their citizens into public/military service.

A free society honors those who serve and they are willing and of course that availability is often a stepping stone to education and self esteem.

Mandatory conscription is abhorent to free people.

amicus...

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Picky note: Charles Rangel is a Democrat, not Democrats.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[amicus]

No, Seacat, I do not think it can be viewed as 'rhetorical'. You indecision may be, but the subject is real.

And no, I do not think politicians and/or the plutocratic business men you refer to should be required to serve, nor do I think public service should be dependent upon sacrificing or serving one's country.

This is a free society, Cat...the first in the history of the world and there is much we do not understand about the true workings of a free people. The best we can do is to learn the basic human principles that guide our existence, adhere to them as best we can and resist any temptations to sacrifice those right and liberties for some imagined 'greater good' of public service or the general welfare.

That greater good and public welfare functions as a by product of freedom and leaves the opportunity for individuals and groups to administer to those in need. Government only makes a mess of things and makes the problem worse without ever solving it.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Rumple...to satisfy your 'pickiness'...one of the articles I read, possibly the one I linked, mentioned a dozen or more 'Democrats' who would sponsor or cosign the bill. Thus the plural.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ami, you amuse me...you scare me sometimes, but mostly you amuse me...

Gosh, this is hardly a misguided fear . . ?

Granted, lots of whacked out bills get introduced by cynical pols every year that are nothing but pure posturing, but when big wheels in congress get on a hobby horse like this, they sometimes actually turn into something real.

 

[DaydreamBeliever]

I find it encredibly humorus as well as terrifing that no one else seems to see the other aspect to this argument

 

[amicus]

..."And a Homecoming Queen..."


amicus...

 

[angela146]

ami, do you favor there being a draft in a war vital to the nation's defense (e.g. during WWII) -where there are not enough volunteers?

Draftees have always been a problem for the US military. One of George Washington's biggest complaints to the Continental Congress was that he wanted a bigger, better paid and longer enlisted standing professional army rather than the malitias of draftees that the states kept sending.

Instead of drafting people, the military folks would much rather have Congress raise the pay of the professional soldiers. That way, they can attract the best and retain them.

In WWII it was somewhat useful to have lots of cannon fodder to send into battle. You could hand a rifle to a man, show him how to shoot it and tell him to kill anything wearing a German uniform.

In today's world, you need well trained well motivated soldiers who can handle highly specialized jobs. The tactics are complex, the equipment is complex and the battlefield is complex.

You can't just shoot anyone in bad-guy uniform. Most of the bad-guys don't wear uniforms. You have to exercise judgement.

Draftees are essentially randomly selected (after the rich and influential folks are removed from the draft pool).

Sure, it's theoretically possible that we might need to draft people if a WWII-type war were to break out. But where and how is that going to happen? What nation with a 3 million soldier standing army is going to attack us?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Draftees have always been a problem for the US military. One of George Washington's biggest complaints to the Continental Congress was that he wanted a bigger, better paid and longer enlisted standing professional army rather than the malitias of draftees that the states kept sending.

Instead of drafting people, the military folks would much rather have Congress raise the pay of the professional soldiers. That way, they can attract the best and retain them.

In WWII it was somewhat useful to have lots of cannon fodder to send into battle. You could hand a rifle to a man, show him how to shoot it and tell him to kill anything wearing a German uniform.

In today's world, you need well trained well motivated soldiers who can handle highly specialized jobs. The tactics are complex, the equipment is complex and the battlefield is complex.

You can't just shoot anyone in bad-guy uniform. Most of the bad-guys don't wear uniforms. You have to exercise judgement.

Draftees are essentially randomly selected (after the rich and influential folks are removed from the draft pool).

Sure, it's theoretically possible that we might need to draft people if a WWII-type war were to break out. But where and how is that going to happen? What nation with a 3 million soldier standing army is going to attack us?

Maybe we can persuade China.

 

[elsol]

Don't you even research the shit you post, Amicus.

Rangel did the same thing in 2004 when Republicans were in power... and *gasp* the bill bought it to the tune of 402 - 2.

Are you feeling okay, Ami? You're usually a better at your hate-mongering of the left than this.

I mean... a lot better.

 

[Guest]

Don't you even research the shit you post, Amicus.

Rangel did the same thing in 2004 when Republicans were in power... and *gasp* the bill bought it to the tune of 402 - 2.

Are you feeling okay, Ami? You're usually a better at your hate-mongering of the left than this.

I mean... a lot better.

He's still in mourning.

You know. Mid-term elections.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Don't you even research the shit you post, Amicus.

Rangel did the same thing in 2004 when Republicans were in power... and *gasp* the bill bought it to the tune of 402 - 2.

Are you feeling okay, Ami? You're usually a better at your hate-mongering of the left than this.

I mean... a lot better.

Not satisfying, Liar. That was pure political gamesmanship on both sides - they weren't "shooting with real bullets," and everyone knew it. But now the circumstances and dynamic are very different, and this could become the political equivalent of "live rounds." The odds are that it won't happen, but it can no longer be dismissed as in 2004.

 

[angela146]

Maybe we can persuade China.

Hmmmm..... China launches a WWII-style invasion of the US...

First they gotta get here.

Let's see... one ship carries a thousand soldiers and their equipment...

Imagine a massive amphibious landing of a thousand troop transport ships, escorted by another seven thousand support and defense ships.

But as they try to cross the Pacific, a squadron of B2's takes potshots at them with cruise missles and various attack subs blow them out of the water.

By the time they get half way, and only a third of them have been distroyed, Bush get's tired of it and decides to nuke the task force. Then China decides to nuke us and well...

Ok, forget the nuclear option...

Long before any of this happens, someone in the CIA notices that the Chinese are building one whole hell of a lot of warships - ten times the size of the entire US Navy at it's peak in the Reagan years.

Someone in Langley sends an email to CNN and Wolf Blitzer goes over to take a look, alerting the entire world to the pending invasion in about three minutes.

Somebody wakes up President Bush who decides to nuke the whole thing. Then China decides to nuke us and well...

Oh, I forgot we were leaving the nukes out of it.

Anyway, I just don't see how somebody gets a whole bunch of soldiers over here without anybody figuring out about it long before it happens.

Remember, in WWII, they didn't have satelites, missles, stealth bombers, the internet...

 

[TE999]

Here's something else to chew on about this whole draft thing.

The days of WWI, WWII, Ko-War, and 'nam 'cannon fodder' are so over. The high-tech weapons in today's army require brains not brawn. One infantry soldier today could take on a squad of past war soldiers and be the only one standing when the smoke cleared. It's a whole new world, folks, like it or not.

We're not fighting standing armies anymore either. But rather an organized bunch of terrorist cells linked by 21st century communications, with 21st century weapons, and guided by a 12th century set of beliefs.

I want five smart guys backing me up taking on these jokers as opposed to twenty dumb-asses who don't want to be there and can't wait to go home.

A Draft? Fuggedaboutit!

The weak can sleep because the strong stand guard.

Peace.

Tom (TE999).