Charlie Rangle will introduce

[BobHunt]

legislation to reinstate the draft. If we have to fight in Iraq, and Iran and Korea, we are going to need plenty of troops, he said. Maybe if some of the children of those in the Senate or House had been sent to Iraq, they wouldnt have approved this war.
Ok, all those who are of a young age, get ready to serve, your number is coming up. Play time is over, how young can we take em in the military? Well, how young does N Korea take them? or Iraq? or Iran? If we meet up with the numbers of their large marching force, we might have to do it. Why, I almost forgot. Maybe there will even be some females who wanta join. In fact, Jerry Jenkins could write a new Left Behind series about all the kids left home alone with their parents fighting for freedom.

[Bruce Carriker]

Charlie Rangel may well introduce legislation to reinstate the draft. If so, he won't have the support of Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) who also introduced legislation to reinstate the draft. Weldon lost his re-election bid.

If he does, in fact, introduce such legistlation, it should enjoy wide bi-partisan support. We both know it won't pass, but it should. For too long the privileged have been protected by the poor in this country. It goes back to at least the Civil War draft when, if you had money, you could pay someone else to serve in your place.

If members of the House, Senate, and the administration were faced with sending THEIR OWN children and grand-children to war, maybe a few needed things would happen:

1) We would exercise a little more restraint in when we go to war;
2) We would make sure that our troops were properly equipped before they went to war; and
3) War would cease to be a partisan issue, because those making decisions would have a personal stake in those decisions.

I can't see any reason NOT to have a draft, provided the only exemptions are for medical reasons and conscientious objectors.

[BobHunt]

Should be a most enjoyable profession for our troops, since most of them go into the homes at night and terrorize women and rape them and terrorize the children, or, like they did in Viet Nam, cut off limbs, attach the electrodes to body parts and turn on the electric, wreck and maim the town's peoples, and all sorts of plunders of the war torn nation.
What a despicable military crew we must have. Maybe that is why when Bush goes overseas, they all carry signs saying he is a murderer, a most wanted criminal, and burn him in efigy or burn the American flag. Im sure that these acts by our troops was part of their training, and the photos we see of them holding the homeless children in their arms are just fake photos sent back to news medias like FOX so they can make a political statement. Whoever started this fake email that shows these pics should go over to Iraq and see the real picture. They should see the havoc that we have caused. Maybe they could even win a stay at least for Sadam, and he could live out his life housed up in one of his restored palaces. We have treated him so poorly in this kangaroo court, forcing him to attend when he didnt want to.
If we hurry, maybe we can elect John Kerry, since he is going to run again, and we can set up some indepth investigations into what some of our troops are doing for their past times and for excitement. Oh, I guess the term is court martial isnt it? Why John Kerry might even try GWB and have him hanged right along with Sadam, as a war criminal. Then all of us could rest in peace, knowing that justice has finally been served and we have done our duty as freedom loving Americans and those who uphold the constitution against such things as needless and stupid wiretappings.
After all, this war has nothing to do with 9/11 and a lot of people think our own government was the one who brought down those towers in NY. You can tell by the way the buildings fell that they were imploded by fires set inside. It was all aranged not only by Pres Bush but other organizations as well, to help our economy, and to give the Pres a better job rating. Why even some of you could be bold enough to look into a NY firefighters eyes and make this claim, especially one of them who has had his lungs burned out by the smoke and heat they endured to rescue some poor injured victim. Yes, our Pres could do that, cause he is a very hard hearted stubborn non caring person, who only wants all he can get and will stop at nothing to get it.
Why, you know what? I even think maybe I should move to Iraq, at least we wouldnt have to put up with these lying politicians and those who are in the Whie House.

[Bruce Carriker]

I have no idea what that incoherent rant was about, or how it is in any way relevant to a discussion of re-instating the draft.

[Cindi Hammons]

Should be a most enjoyable profession for our troops, since most of them go into the homes at night and terrorize women and rape them and terrorize the children, or, like they did in Viet Nam, cut off limbs, attach the electrodes to body parts and turn on the electric, wreck and maim the town's peoples, and all sorts of plunders of the war torn nation.
What a despicable military crew we must have.

Please tell me you were trying to make some sort of sick joke with this post. I don't think I have ever read anything here on the NazNet that is more insulting to our military. Just because there have been a few incidents involving brutality does not give anyone the right to indict "our troops" as you have blamed "most of them!"

We have 4 soldiers from our church who are good Christian people. Your comments are an insult to their service.

[Cindi Hammons]

Bruce,

I would wager that many Democrats would not have been elected a few weeks ago if they had used this in their election/re-election platform.

[Hans Deventer]

Cindi,

If I know Bob at all, I read sarcasm all over this post. This is not his view, but an attempt so show how ridiculous that view is.

You may disagree with the method, but I think you'll agree with the intent.

That is at least the reason why I have taken no action as moderator.

[Cindi Hammons]

If it was sarcasm, then it was done in poor taste.

(I'm certainly not questioning your moderating, just Bob's methods of communication.)

[Barbara Moulton]

Cindi,

If I know Bob at all, I read sarcasm all over this post. This is not his view, but an attempt so show how ridiculous that view is.



Knowing Bob that was certainly how I read his post.

[Mark Doble]

Myself, first starting to read had to shake my head. After thinking about it and knowing Bob's way of sarcasm I realized what he was saying. Sarcasm or not Bob makes his point clearly.

Remembering we as an online community do not have the privilege of expressing ourselves as we would do person to person. I think I have fallen victim to that trap many times as well.

[Glenn Harris]

If members of the House, Senate, and the administration were faced with sending THEIR OWN children and grand-children to war, maybe a few needed things would happen:


Bruce:

I don't buy the idea that not having the draft is what is putting undue burden to fight wars on the lower class and protecting the elite. Whether or not the motives for joining the military today are patriotic or economic, (I suspect a good spattering of both with some blatant thrill seeking added in in a few cases) the people that are joining are doing so of their own free will and not because some guy at some draft board put the finger on them and they didn't have enough power or money to avoid it. If history is any indication, initiating the draft will put more burden on the lower class as they are the ones least likely to use political influence, college deferment and other options to avoid it. I find it interesting that the argument being used today for initiating the draft is the same argument that was being used in the 70's for eliminating it. I have no objection to wanting a draft or not wanting a draft but my personal opinion is that this particular reasoning is simply class baiting.

[BobHunt]

Sarcasm indeed, to show how far some people would go, and how wrong it would be, at least in my mind. I really dont see us fighting 3 wars at once, for one thing, and I dont see us needing that many more men to justify needing to start the draft.
As I watched the news today, I am amazed how many armchair generals we have in the Senate and House. Maybe thats part of our biggest problem, everybody thinks they know how to do it, when they have no experience at all. You can put down our actual on the ground generals and say they dont know what their doing, but at least have another successful plan besides tucktail.

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce,

I would wager that many Democrats would not have been elected a few weeks ago if they had used this in their election/re-election platform.

I'm not sure it's as much a Democratic initiative as it is a Charlie Rangel initiative. And he's introduced it every year since the war started, so it should have come as no surprise to his constituents.

Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania who lost his seat, also introduced such legislation, but I doubt you'll hear much about that.

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce:

If history is any indication, initiating the draft will put more burden on the lower class as they are the ones least likely to use political influence, college deferment and other options to avoid it.

That's why I said that my support of the idea was contingent on their being no exemptions except for medical reasons or conscientious objection to military service.

[Billy Cox]

Reason #1: The Pentagon doesn't want it.

If the military doesn't want it, it's for sure not going to see the light of day.

[Cindi Hammons]

I'm not sure it's as much a Democratic initiative as it is a Charlie Rangel initiative. And he's introduced it every year since the war started, so it should have come as no surprise to his constituents.


Aha...I did not know that. Ok, it makes more sense. If this is a perennial Rangel "thing", why is the media focusing on this now? And why does it seem as though it is being considered?

Just curious.

[Bruce Carriker]

Aha...I did not know that. Ok, it makes more sense. If this is a perennial Rangel "thing", why is the media focusing on this now? And why does it seem as though it is being considered?

Just curious.

Because the media understands the process enough to know that when you're in leadership, you can actually DO SOMETHING about your agenda. Rangel will chair the House Ways and Means Committee, perhaps the most powerful committee chair on Capitol Hill. From there, should he choose to, he will be able to do a lot of arm-twisting.

There still aren't the votes to pass a draft bill, but if Rangel wants to throw his weight around, it could actually get through committee and to the floor of the House, where members would have to come down publicly on one side or the other.

[Bruce Carriker]

Reason #1: The Pentagon doesn't want it.

If the military doesn't want it, it's for sure not going to see the light of day.

I agree with this. However, as long as the military complains about being overextended (and they are) and are not meeting their recruiting and retention goals (and they aren't); and so long as the budget remains grotesquely in the red (and its going to), don't we reach the point where simply throwing more money at recruits isn't going to fix the problem?

And when we reach the point that financial incentives no longer work (and it appears we're there...or very close), what other option is there but to re-instate the draft?

They are already issuing recalls to discharged former members who still have a reserve commitment. They have already alerted National Guard units to prepare for second (or in some cases third and fourth) deployments. They are not honoring their commitment to active component service members that they would have at least a year stateside before being redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They even reached so low as to send me a letter last year, asking if I wanted to volunteer to return to active duty to fight the Global War on Terror; and I've been retired almost eight years.

The all-volunteer force is great for peacetime. It's great for first response, and limited combat action (Grenada, Panama). But when deciding to use combat force for an extended period of time, if the entire nation is not prepared to mobilize and sacrifice, then we shouldn't go.

We are already seeing that in a prolonged conflict, an all-volunteer force is not sustainable. This was foreseen many years ago, when draft registration was reinstated. Why do we have compulsory registration in the first place, if not as a precursor to reinstating the draft in times of war? And isn't that where we're at? So why do we lack the national will to get serious about going to war?

[BobHunt]

well it seems that the volunteer army is so much better all the way around, because as they said on Moody yesterday, way over 80 percent of those who volunteered, re enlist after their tour of duty is done. If we had a draft, you would find most doing their 4 years and leaving. From what they said this IS a Rangle thing, so I apologize for blaming all the Democrats.....he tried to introduce the draft once before and the vote was overwhelmingly against it. Maybe I should say Charlie has some strange ideas even more strange than his fellow Dems.
Hannity did try to pin him down about raising taxes and his answers were very slippery....that is he avoided a clear cut answer.

[Bruce Carriker]

If we're going to have a war that's costing way more than originally projected; and if it's vital to national security; why shouldn't we raise taxes to pay for it?

I like low taxes as much as the next guy, but the original promise was that the war would cost $200 billion or so...tops...and that oil revenues from Iraq would cover the cost. Neither of those has proven to be true.

So, after five years of warfare with no end in sight, doesn't fiscal responsibility require that we adjust plans to pay for the war, to bring them into synch with reality?

[Bruce Carriker]

Interesting stuff: A week ago General Abazaid says the Army may need to increase in size to maintain the current op-tempo. Yesterday the new commandant of the Marine Corps, General Wagner, says the same thing about the Corps. How long before the Air Force and the Navy jump on this bandwagon?

And with the budget already awash in red ink, how do we increase the size of the force for the war, without adding a bunch of folks who want a military career? (Both Generals say that the current size is about right for peacetime and any increase would be temporary.)

Hmmmm....draft, anyone?