Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

jujuman13 · 11-19-06, 04:34 PM

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com

Kandahar · 11-19-06, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jujuman13

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Rangel's idea is dead on arrival and he knows it. He's just doing this to make a statement, which is fine.

CaptainCourtesy · 11-19-06, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Rangel's idea is dead on arrival and he knows it. He's just doing this to make a statement, which is fine.

I agree. He's just granstanding his point about being against the war in Iraq.

tryreading · 11-19-06, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jujuman13

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com

I like his statement 'I don't know how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.'

Its irresponsible not to have a draft at this time, since we have two wars going.

Stupiderthanthou · 11-19-06, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

I like his statement 'I don't know how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.'

It's because terrorists, insurgents, guerillas, and the like - the groups most dangerous to American interests in the foreseeable future - are by their very natures slippery opponents; the sort of conventional military might and tactics that won World War II are of relatively little use against them (one of the great lessons of Vietnam, I thought). Awesome firepower is great, but you have to be able to bring it to bear. If one subscribes to the theory that a "war on terrorism" is the sort of conflict the successful prosecution of which calls for raids, assassinations, and pinpoint attacks, he of necessity chooses the small but highly trained professional military that America has long placed its trust in over a massive, unwieldy, poorly trained force. Think about it... a platoon of special forces with good intel could do more to hurt the terrorists than a regular infantry division of draftees under almost any circumstances, and small-scale operations have the added bonus of not alienating the locals in the way that America's perceived occupation of Iraq has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

Its irresponsible not to have a draft at this time, since we have two wars going.

And if one believed the wars themselves were irresponsible?

Given that the Bush administration is bent on reducing troop levels in Iraq - in other words, given that the commander-in-chief himself fails to see the need for a draft - how is it irresponsible? Less, I would argue, is sometimes more - particularly in a struggle that is purportedly against people rather than nations. We're using too much already.

hipsterdufus · 11-19-06, 07:41 PM

It's a symbolic gesture. Read the article.

I do fear what would happen if the US was attacked with our troops bogged down in Iraq.

cherokee · 11-19-06, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

It's a symbolic gesture. Read the article.

I do fear what would happen if the US was attacked with our troops bogged down in Iraq.

We could handle it...but volker and a few others wouldnt like what they saw next..

tryreading · 11-19-06, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stupiderthanthou

It's because terrorists, insurgents, guerillas, and the like - the groups most dangerous to American interests in the foreseeable future - are by their very natures slippery opponents; the sort of conventional military might and tactics that won World War II are of relatively little use against them (one of the great lessons of Vietnam, I thought). Awesome firepower is great, but you have to be able to bring it to bear. If one subscribes to the theory that a "war on terrorism" is the sort of conflict the successful prosecution of which calls for raids, assassinations, and pinpoint attacks, he of necessity chooses the small but highly trained professional military that America has long placed its trust in over a massive, unwieldy, poorly trained force. Think about it... a platoon of special forces with good intel could do more to hurt the terrorists than a regular infantry division of draftees under almost any circumstances, and small-scale operations have the added bonus of not alienating the locals in the way that America's perceived occupation of Iraq has.

And if one believed the wars themselves were irresponsible?

Given that the Bush administration is bent on reducing troop levels in Iraq - in other words, given that the commander-in-chief himself fails to see the need for a draft - how is it irresponsible? Less, I would argue, is sometimes more - particularly in a struggle that is purportedly against people rather than nations. We're using too much already.

Slippery opponents aren't going to gain any edge over us because of a draft. The war may be unconventional, but its still run by people. And the more military over there, the less we have here available for rapid deployment. Also, I have a beef with allowing troops to return to Iraq for tour after tour. Of course the troops do it, they are loyal Americans and want to help any way they can. But they should not be allowed, in some cases, to repeatedly return to Iraq. It is unhealthy for them, beyond the possibility of physical harm.

Sure, small groups can do well in guerrilla fighting, but we need a large military as always. We need this for deterrence, emergency situations, proper manpower in the current Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, etc.

Another good line by Rangel was that those who have the power to involve the country in a war might think more deeply about that decision if their own children could be drafted. Although I wish it could be that way, our leaders know how to keep their kids out of action.

Bush is against the draft, but that doesn't mean not having one is the responsible choice.

I was against Iraq from the beginning. But I was for the Afghanistan invasion, and the general war on terror, and still am 100% behind them. They were and are necessary, and we need to proceed strongly with them.

1069 · 11-19-06, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jujuman13

If he succeeds he will be the cause of the biggest defeat the democrats have ever experienced!

Link

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com

This proposal of his almost terrified me into a mental hospital last time he proposed it (about three years ago).
Both my sons will be draft age before this war is over.
But everybody told me then just to stop freaking; it was just grandstanding, and had no chance of passing.
And lo and behold, it sunk without a ripple.
Now it's bobbed to the surface again, apparently, like dead things tend to do after they reach a certain stage of decomposition; perhaps this time we can fish it out of the pond entirely, and give it a proper (and permanent) burial?
If this is a "statement" Rangel's making, it's not one that I like very much.
We've all got better things to do, I'm sure, than worry that the government is going to come and seize our children to use as cannon fodder.

Navy Pride · 11-19-06, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

This proposal of his almost terrified me into a mental hospital last time he proposed it (about three years ago).
Both my sons will be draft age before this war is over.
But everybody told me then just to stop freaking; it was just grandstanding, and had no chance of passing.
And lo and behold, it sunk without a ripple.
Now it's bobbed to the surface again, apparently, like dead things tend to do after they reach a certain stage of decomposition; perhaps this time we can fish it out of the pond entirely, and give it a proper (and permanent) burial?
If this is a "statement" Rangel's making, it's not one that I like very much.
We've all got better things to do, I'm sure, than worry that the government is going to come and seize our children to use as cannon fodder.

Rangel is and idiot...........He floated a bill to bring back the draft a short time ago and out of 435 Congressman 3 voted for it and that does not even include him........