Hooray - WAR? is over

[danmurphy jr]

Senior Democrat renews call for military draft

An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"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.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

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

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

somehow the Dems forgot to mention that before election--but sure it will be brought up prior to 08 election

 

[gardenweasel]

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

that`s a pretty interesting comment..actually,it`s downright cynical.......considering that when his last draft bill came up for a vote in 2004, he voted against it.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134546,00.html

another grandstanding hypocrite....it would seem an extremely cynical move to recreate vietnam conditions and get the college protester population energized...and then blame bush et al for for making the idea of a draft necessary......... but what does that do for his base?...this won`t make them happy....

during vietnam the dems were AGAINST the draft on the basis that it was unfair to the "underpiviledged" because college deferments were allowed....if i recall the lottery was an attempt to address that....

the all volunteer army was determined to be fair because it was, well, voluntary.....

now, the dems are against the "all volunteer" army on the basis that a disproportionate number of the underpriviledged "volunteer"?........:wtf:

it just shows how insane the left has become that rangel obviously thinks he has good odds that the leftist beanbags( in the process of rioting to stop the draft that he campaigned for) will forget it was one of their own that pushed for it....

and the TRULY sick thing is he's right......lol

 

[bjfinste]

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. .

There wasn't a draft in WW2? I didn't know that... had always just assumed there was one.

 

[Chadman]

From wikipedia:

WWII draft


The draft began in October 1940. By the early summer of 1941, President Roosevelt asked the U.S. Congress to extend the term of duty for the draftees beyond twelve months. The United States House of Representatives approved the extension by a single vote. The Senate approved it by a wider margin, and Roosevelt signed the bill into law. Many of the soldiers drafted in October 1940 threatened to desert once the original twelve months of their service was up. Many of these men painted the letters "O," "H," "I," and "O" (OHIO) on the walls of their barracks in protest.[2] These letters were an acronym for "Over the hill in October," which meant that the men intended to desert upon the end of their twelve months of duty. Desertions did occur, but they were not widespread. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on 7 December 1941, thousands of American men and women swelled the United States' military's ranks by volunteering for service. After the United States entered World War II, a new selective service act made men between 18 and 45 liable for military service and required all men between 18 and 65 to register. The terminal point of service was extended to six months after the war. From 1940 until 1947?when the wartime selective service act expired after extensions by Congress?over 10,000,000 men were inducted.

 

[StevieD]

So now our Neocon Nitwit is somehow dissing a guy for wanting a draft while at the same time saying he is right. Nice work if you can get it.

Oh yeah Neocon....if the Dems were against a draft in the 60's and 70's then I assume the Republicans were for it. And then, now just by using your logic....no you have no logic....by your thought proceess then must they not be hypocrits also for not initiating a draft for this war?

I have been against the Neocon money making scheme of a War in Iraq since before the first bombs fell but doesn't it only seem to make sense that if you are going to attack and go to war you do it with enough men?

 

[gardenweasel]

So now our Neocon Nitwit is somehow dissing a guy for wanting a draft while at the same time saying he is right. Nice work if you can get it.

Oh yeah Neocon....if the Dems were against a draft in the 60's and 70's then I assume the Republicans were for it. And then, now just by using your logic....no you have no logic....by your thought proceess then must they not be hypocrits also for not initiating a draft for this war?

I have been against the Neocon money making scheme of a War in Iraq since before the first bombs fell but doesn't it only seem to make sense that if you are going to attack and go to war you do it with enough men?

i don`t know what you just tried to say......i`m not entirely sure if you know......

i didn`t say he was right...i was saying that he was right in thinking that myopic guys like you will figure a way to blame bush rather than rangel...

my main point.....in a nutshell...is that if you propose a bill,it might be intellectually honest,not to mention sane, to at least vote for the bill that you presented.....

stevie:"And "then, now" just by using your logic....no you have no logic....by your thought proceess then must they not be hypocrits also for not initiating a draft for this war?"

i`ll try and respond to "that"....why institute a draft?....i guess, the ultimate strategy is to get rid of the current all-volunteer military....it has proven to be the finest, best-educated, best-trained, and most lethal military in human history.....thus, democrats want to replace it with involuntary draftees that will whine, go awol, do drugs, lose wars, and make us the laughingstock of the planet....not to mention wreak havoc and foment insurrection on moonbat college campuses.....

simply stated, some dems want us to lose wars and be humiliated so we will never want to fight another war......

the ends (pacifism and american defeat) justifies any and all means....

and thanks for the "neocon nitwit"comment.....i`m sure it was intended as a term of endearment....

be nice,stevie...

 

[StevieD]

Weasel, are you for the draft or against it. Pretty simple question. It appears that you are against it. But then again you might be for it depending on who suggests it?

Seems to me if you want to increase the troops, and defend the country against this threat of terrorism you should start a draft. Oh, I forgot, you and want to "Stay the course." Isn't that the course that got your one of your Neocon hero's dumped by another of your Neocon hypocrits the President?

 

[gardenweasel]

it would depend on the situation.....if we came into a second conflict with say,iran,it might be necessary....

i haven`t heard any military people indicate that it`s necessary at this time.....

rangel only wants to foment trouble...it`s a political ploy.... another liberal attempt at social engineering...

and his premise is wrong...... that only poor people fight the war...that`s been proven a bogus assumption...

he`s a hypocrite....would he actually vote for it this time?....that would be novel...

 

[kosar]

...it has proven to be the finest, best-educated, best-trained, and most lethal military in human history

While this may be true, can I ask how that has translated on various(every)conflicts since 1945? It's not all about that, obviously.

I won't bother going down the list again, but our 'best', 'most lethal' military has never won any conflict by being 'best.'

Western theater WW11 was a sure loser if not for the Soviets. Period.

Speaking of the Soviets, how about their little adventure in Afghanistan. 8 years and Big Red couldn't get control of a ragtag bunch firing small arms at their big bad tanks. Damn Soviet media, holding them back i'm sure.

Eastern theater WW11- enough said.

Every other conflict since 1945. Enough said.

Oh, my bad, a multi-national million man force routed Iraq in 1991 and forced them right out of Kuwait as Iraqi's elite units ran or surrendered.

Jingoistic clowns like GW get all excited about how 'lethal' our military is, and in a macro sense, it does indeed serve as a deterrent, but let's face facts. All the bombs and tanks in the world don't win 'wars' such as the ones we're in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[gardenweasel]

"While this may be true, can I ask how that has translated on various(every)conflicts since 1945? It's not all about that, obviously."

well,on this,you obviously agree with this "jingoistic clown"...

since viet nam, our media has influenced...actually hamstrung ...our military with their p.c. crap and( at times) anti-american reporting and divulging secret programs and war plans........

actually,this just came out today...

WASHINGTON - "A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options — injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives “Go big, go long and go home.”......

very helpful...yet again...

traitors...plain and simple...

i`d like to know where can I go to read iran's, syria's, and hezbullah's secret plans?....does the washington post/nyt`s carry those? ....

if not, who? ....

lol

 

[Chadman]

Are you kidding me? This has to be your best work yet, wease. The report is released saying that we have three basic options in Iraq.

1. We devote more troops and make a big push to try to rid the country of bad guys.

2. We shrink the force and remain in the country for a longer period of time.

3. We pull out soon, and let the people in the country figure it all out.

MY GOD, how could they have released such a report? Now the terra-rists will know we will do one of three things, or a combination of things, either soon, or in the long run.

Damn those traitors, aiding the enemy with such important information. They could have NEVER figured out those things on their own.

:mj10:

One thing I will say...I doubt the President could have figured it out on his own. :142smilie

 

[kosar]

since viet nam, our media has influenced...actually hamstrung ...our military with their p.c. crap and( at times) anti-american reporting and divulging secret programs and war plans........

actually,this just came out today...

WASHINGTON - "A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options ? injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives ?Go big, go long and go home.?......

very helpful...yet again...

traitors...plain and simple...

i`d like to know where can I go to read iran's, syria's, and hezbullah's secret plans?....does the washington post/nyt`s carry those? ....

if not, who? ....

lol

Is this satire, weasel? That's a state secret that our options are to stay, leave, or partially draw down? Traitors!

 

[kosar]

Are you kidding me? This has to be your best work yet, wease. The report is released saying that we have three basic options in Iraq.

1. We devote more troops and make a big push to try to rid the country of bad guys.

2. We shrink the force and remain in the country for a longer period of time.

3. We pull out soon, and let the people in the country figure it all out.

MY GOD, how could they have released such a report? Now the terra-rists will know we will do one of three things, or a combination of things, either soon, or in the long run.

Damn those traitors, aiding the enemy with such important information. They could have NEVER figured out those things on their own.

:mj10:

One thing I will say...I doubt the President could have figured it out on his own. :142smilie

lmao- hadn't seen your post before I posted, but I think my 4 year old niece could have identified those three things as our options. Christ!

 

[smurphy]

I'm not sure how serious Rangel is on this. Sounds like he's trying to prove a point:

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

It's hard to argue with that statement. I'm sure he knows that his own party and probably most Reps will vote against a draft -there's no real possibility of this happening. Looks like he's just bringing that up to prove a point about the chickenhawks that dragged us into Iraq.

 

[gardenweasel]

i see andy or barney let both otis` out again......lol



it was a secret study....

nothing in the original story says the study was meant to be released officially....


in fact, i read the story this morning in the washington post - front page, above the fold - and it specifically said that their sources requested anonymity because they were not allowed to make any of their deliberations public.....

so if there has been a press release now, it is only because the information had already become public, and those in charge are trying to do damage control....


you gou guys see kosar and chad?......this is what happens when you don`t listen to bob barker and have your moonbats spayed and/or neutered.....

 

[kosar]

Weasel,

How, exactly, could that 'info' help the enemy (whoever that is) in any way?

 

[smurphy]

LOL'ing yourself again, I see. Sad.

 

[Chadman]

Damage control? Hmm, that's an interesting perspective.

Have you hugged your moonbat today?
:bigear: (Closest smiley to a moonbat I can find)

That's it. We have GOT to find some appropriate new smilies for this forum. Let's take inventory of our needs, and get the job done in a non-partisan fashion, my brothers.

We currently need:
1. Cricket, or preferably a gaggle of crickets.
2. A moonbat. We can probably duplicate for crowd effect.

Next?

 

[Chadman]

3. A secret surveiling smilie thing for the lurkers and handicapping pick stealers.

I apologize in advance for not knowing the proper spelling and usage for all the forms of the word surveilance, or whatever it is. It is strictly a neocon conservative word, that I am not allowed to spell check on my liberal computer connection.