Representative Rangel Seeks to Reinstate The Draft.

The Democratic Representative of New York claims that if a draft is reinstated, then polititians will think twice before launching wars. This is the main premise he is presenting for reinstating a draft. Back in 2003 he made a proposition to have mandatory military service for men and women age 18 to 26. Earlier this year he proposed another plan which would make mandatory military service for men and women age 18 to 42, both times his propositions went nowhere in the Republican led Congress.



The main concept behind our Armed Forces is that it is a voluntary force, made up of people who for one reason or another "choose", keyword here is choose, to join one of the branches of the Armed Forces.

The concept this man presents is ludricous to say the least. IMO the Armed Forces should always be voluntary, and not mandatory.

Let's hope that the now Democratic led Congress agrees that our Armed Forces should keep being voluntary, and not mandatory.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by Muaddib]

The concept this man presents is ludricous to say the least. IMO the Armed Forces should always be voluntary, and not mandatory.

Mule muffins!

Rangel's motives are out of kilter, but mandatory military service is a good idea both for the military and the country.

Originally posted by GradyPhillipott

Rangel's motives are out of kilter, but mandatory military service is a good idea both for the military and the country.

Gotta disagree with you here Grady. If service is manditory it's no longer "service", it's slavery. That's the idea of voluntary service. Besides, why would you want to serve with someone that doesn't want to be in any given situation?

I am against the draft, but the reasons given for the draft actually I can agree with. Right now the volunteer army doesn't represent all areas in our society.

But the bill will never pass. Already Bush and Pelosy said that is not need for it.

Originally posted by marg6043
I am against the draft, but the reasons given for the draft actually I can agree with. Right now the volunteer army doesn't represent all areas in our society.

But the bill will never pass. Already Bush and Pelosy said that is not need for it.

Why? Not enough Blacks and Hispanics in our military? Too many whites?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Why? Not enough Blacks and Hispanics in our military? Too many whites?

What! you want to turn this into a racist issue now Deltaboy?

I hope you get fun with it, I am too holiday happy to fall for the bait.

Read the beginning post and then you will see what the all parts of society means.

Happy Turkey day

this will turn into nothing again. Im suprised this guy doesn't just give up on this stupid tactic. Honestly I don't get it, he KNOWS it will fail

Nothing will happen, there's no reason for bringing back
the draft, and the majority of the public and lawmakers
are against it.

The draft is, was and always will be a bad idea.

They just had Congressman Rangel on CNN, and I think he explained the real reason why he is bringing up the draft. He said that recruiters target his district in New York, which has high unemployment and they spend billions in advertising. This is in line with why he feels it is unfair that the majority of the troops are from poor districts and that rich kids should also serve. I don't see a problem with recruiting in these areas. For some it can open up opportunities that they may not get any other way.

I have to wonder though, even though this will not go anywhere, how many are they talking about drafting? If they insist everyone serve at some point, both men and women, I would think there would be to many in the military and the cost would be something we can't afford.

I would like to see some stats to back up Rangel's claims. Something a little more substantial than "They recruit in poor neighborhoods, therefore it must be true."

What are the demographics of the typical military, including pilots and officers?

OK calm down people! Rangle brings up the draft as a Political Tactic to get Publicity & seeing as we are short on troops - he got publicity from using the "D" word. Don't forget that this is the main point that he was trying to make - a Valid one if you ask me:

"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.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The concept this man presents is ludricous to say the least. IMO the Armed Forces should always be voluntary, and not mandatory.

Mule muffins!

Rangel's motives are out of kilter, but mandatory military service is a good idea both for the military and the country.

Sounds like an opinion to me not a fact

Well apparently the Democratic led Congress and others which includes people from all parties agree that we do not need a draft. Rengel's call for a draft has been rebuffed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party members, who have said it will not be part of the Democrat's agenda.

Democratic Rep. Charles B. Rangel's latest call to quickly restart the military draft was shot down yesterday by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party members, who said it will not be part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.
New York's Mr. Rangel periodically has urged a draft revival as a mechanism to criticize President Bush's handling of military deployments in the war on terrorism. He renewed his call again on Sunday, saying on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "if we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without the draft. ... I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session."
But Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, told reporters she does not favor the draft and has no plans to schedule a floor debate. And in the Senate, incoming Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, also dismissed the idea.
"I don't think we need it," he told reporters.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, disagreed with Mr. Rangel's long-held position that the burden of fighting wars fall disproportionately on low-income people. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation concluded that the children of higher-income parents increased their enlistment numbers after the September 11 attack.
Mr. Hunter said his son left a civilian job to serve in Iraq and that several committee members have sons fighting in the war.
Mr. Rangel, an Iraq war critic who will become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urged a new draft during the 2004 presidential election. Other Democrats floated a rumor that the Bush administration plotted behind the scenes to institute compulsory service because of missed recruiting goals.

www.washingtontimes.com...



[edit on 21-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Well at least we know now that it wll be not draft for the time beign, and yes . . . the draft has always been a Democrats agenda, and Democrats been in power in congress will have the supporters of the draft giving a shot for it.

My opinion: While our military service is involved in a war effort, it's personnel are drawn mostly from the middle class, educated youth.

The children of priviledge: the rich, never serve unless forced, yet they are the ones who benefit most from the economic opportunities of war making.

The poor: Mostly uneducated, or failed out of high school, they fail to meet the minimum guidlines for soldiers in todays high-tech military.

While a Draft that forces all citizens of age to participate in Service to the Country is an excellent idea, a Draft that is exclusive to Military Service is not. Therefore a Draft that includes not only Military Service but Service to the Public would be equatible, just, and provide for the common good. This would create a Draft that not only provides Soldiers, but also provides Workers who can be utilized on Public Service projects, such as repairing our infrastructure, while giving the same individuals a clear shot at a life sustaining job in the private sector.

Speaking as a democrat, as though that word is just absolutely the worst thing you can call somebody, it is not a "democrats agenda". It's a political agenda used whenever there's war or unrest in another country, somebody always starts throwing around the "d" word. Our military works as well as it does because at least 95% of them are there because they want to be. (I say 95% to account for those who are there because they were told they had to and those who joined to escape responsibility for whatever. I'm aware it's a completely voluntary thing, but there are ways to make people do things they don't really want to do.) I wouldn't want to be fighting next to some one who was only there because he was the lucky one that got drafted. I'd almost guarantee that the majority of those in the military feel the same way. Politicians are aware of this. While they might think twice if it was their sons and daughters getting sent to war, they might not. Either way, the draft won't be coming back. There'd be too much of an uproar from the public and no sane politician is going to risk losing the next election by supporting a draft.

Originally posted by Jenna
Speaking as a democrat, as though that word is just absolutely the worst thing you can call somebody, it is not a "democrats agenda". It's a political agenda

While I agree with you on the democratic agenda been a political agenda, do not let my use of words confuse you, I use the agenda term because that it is called by the opposition.

Actually goes both ways.

As I stated previously on another thread, I think pushing for the draft is part of Rangel's plan to turn this country against its own military. Bringing back the draft during an unpopular war would be so repugnant to Americans. But, again, I truly believe that is the goal of the Rangels, Kerrys, Murthas, etc. in the democrat party - the party that detest the military and likes to vote the big military cuts a la when Carter and Clinton were in office.

Also, this whole racism issue with regards to the draft is nothing more than a red herring meant to stir up people even more. And look around this thread - it's working. Yep, that Rangel is one devious fellow ...

[edit on 11/21/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Jenna
Speaking as a democrat, as though that word is just absolutely the worst thing you can call somebody, it is not a "democrats agenda". It's a political agenda used whenever there's war or unrest in another country, somebody always starts throwing around the "d" word.

Wow, that's some of the best dancing around an issue that I've ever seen. Exactly like the governor in the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas movie.

Earth to Jenna:

Since that "somebody" that throws around the "d" word is always a democrat, it makes it a democrat's issue. Pretending anything else is disingenuous and an insult to the intelligence of the rest of the readers on this thread.

Strangely enough even Rengel himself voted against this bill. Maybe it was more of a symbolic gesture more then anything?


Pie