[Spliffdaddy]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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, 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.


Wouldn't it be great if this gained traction and the draft was reinstated!

Too bad the Dems efforts failed the last time they tried this.

[Chuckit]

He's trying to pitch this as a way to discourage wars. How bizarre. Are the Democrats so shocked by winning that they're instinctively trying to sink their own ship?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Too bad the Dems efforts failed the last time they tried this.

the last bills were designed to fail, so does that failure mean success? rangel voted against his own bill. it's politics - and it sucks.

[Spliffdaddy]

Makes me wonder if the Dems are serious about the issues they claim to support.

[nonhuman]

Damnit, both parties are so full of **** at this point....

[Chuckit]

Yeah. If you wonder whether a party really cares about the issues it claims to support, you're naive. It's obvious neither party does.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah. If you wonder whether a party really cares about the issues it claims to support, you're naive. It's obvious neither party does.

This is why I support third parties. As long as they're small, they have no choice but to actually stand for their issues.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He's trying to pitch this as a way to discourage wars. How bizarre. Are the Democrats so shocked by winning that they're instinctively trying to sink their own ship?

It's simple, really.

As I've mentioned several times ANY war can have a Viet-Nam'esque ending if you introduce the same elements here at home that existed in America circa 1968 - 1973.

Once the draft is instituted that will bring demonstrations up a notch and literally FORCE the politicians to pull out completely.

Voila!

Viet-Nam 2!

No Mo Woe.

Or so they think.

Then we would get a chance to see (up close and personal!) that greg, Helmling and Ron Goodman's theory is bogus.

If you don't remember, they believe the threat of Global Jihad is overblown.

[lpkmckenna]

The draft is a violation of rights. It means "involuntary servitude."

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The draft is a violation of rights. It means "involuntary servitude."

Here is an EXCELLENT article discussing any proposed draft.

A military draft?
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 1, 2006

There was a time when most members of Congress had served in the military, as had many people in the media. Today that is no longer true -- and it shows in many ways.

Ignorance should at least create caution but it seems to do just the opposite. People with little knowledge about the military, and no personal experience, often have the most sweeping and unrealistic expectations, and even demands, to make on people whose lives are at risk in battle.


CAIR-MI representative Nazih Hassan (L), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lead counsel Ann Beeson (2nd L), National Security Agency expert James Bamford (2nd R) and former legal counsel to former U.S. President Richard Nixon, John W. Dean, listen as they are introduced during a public meeting about "Spying, Secrecy and Presidential Power" in Ann Arbor, Michigan June June 11, 2006. All four are plaintiffs in the ACLU v NSA case where oral arguments are set for Monday at U.S. District Court in Detroit at which the ACLU will ask Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to declare the spying unconstitutional and order it halted. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook (UNITED STATES)

The military have been criticized for everything from not protecting an Iraqi museum while being shot at to not being as nice to the terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo as people in safe and comfortable editorial offices would like.

More dangerously, TV reporters broadcasting from where shells are falling blithely say such things as "the shells are landing about five miles north of here."

Does it ever occur to them that their internationally broadcast comments will reach those who are doing the shelling, who can adjust their range accordingly and then kill more efficiently?

On the home front, life goes on today as if there were no war. Consumer goods are as abundant as ever and no real sacrifices are demanded of the civilian population, who are spectators rather than even tangential participants. None of this is healthy.

Some have suggested a military draft as a way to at least create some sense of realism about war and to share its burdens more widely and equitably.

Those on the left play the class-warfare card and the race card to say that the elites are sending other people's youths into battle while their own offspring are sheltered from sacrifice. But the over-riding question is: What would be the effect of instituting a military draft?

Such questions cannot be answered as if we were talking about drafting abstract people into an abstract army. A military draft today would be very different in its consequences from the military draft in World War II.

Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.

Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically "educated" to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.

Continued at link.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...&Comments=true

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Damnit, both parties are so full of **** at this point....

Always have been, always will be.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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, 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.


Wouldn't it be great if this gained traction and the draft was reinstated!

Too bad the Dems efforts failed the last time they tried this.

OK. So "one Dem" = "All Dems"?

Reaaally....

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This is why I support third parties. As long as they're small, they have no choice but to actually stand for their issues.

It's pretty easy to "take a stand" when they'll never have to worry about having to implement anything.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

It's simple, really.

As I've mentioned several times ANY war can have a Viet-Nam'esque ending if you introduce the same elements here at home that existed in America circa 1968 - 1973.

Once the draft is instituted that will bring demonstrations up a notch and literally FORCE the politicians to pull out completely.

Voila!

Viet-Nam 2!

No Mo Woe.

Or so they think.

Then we would get a chance to see (up close and personal!) that greg, Helmling and Ron Goodman's theory is bogus.

If you don't remember, they believe the threat of Global Jihad is overblown.

Let's see...we destroyed Al Qaeda. Despite missing its top figure, we have captured--in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq--other key leaders and destroyed its financial and information networks. So, if the preexisting network for this global jihad was disrupted, then what is fueling the international movement now...hmmm, could it be that some totally unjustified action of the power all these medieval thugs resent so has inflated their PR campaign depicting their enemies as imperialists? Could any American leader be so inept as to launch a war under false pretenses with a totally apparent conflict of interests that would play into the terrorists' hands by giving them a greater boon to recruiting than anyone could ever have imagined?

Really, you should try the argument that since we broke it, we have a moral responsibility to stay in Iraq and try to fix the mess we created. That one actually makes sense, as opposed to the theory that these islamofascists, who are in fact deeply divided, are somehow going to become as coherent a threat to world security as the Nazis. The argument that we have a duty to the Iraqi people for the damage we've done is one that holds weight--but I understand the right-wing tendency to stick with fearmongering, after all it worked to get us into Iraq.

By the way, "stay in Iraq" doesn't mean "stay the course." We obviously need to bring in some new thinking on the problem, and Rummy's replacement doesn't look to be any visionary in that regard. We need Bush to look deeply into his mistakes, but that takes a big person.

Maybe if we can get you to admit you've been wrong, then there will be hope for all of us.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell

Some have suggested a military draft as a way to at least create some sense of realism about war and to share its burdens more widely and equitably.

Wow. This is a pretty idiotic statement. Of all the stupid reasons to institute a draft.

The strength of our military comes from it being all-volunteer. Conscript armies suck.

If we need more soldiers we should pay them more.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wow. This is a pretty idiotic statement. Of all the stupid reasons to institute a draft.

The strength of our military comes from it being all-volunteer. Conscript armies suck.

If we need more soldiers we should pay them more.

Quoted for truth.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Let's see...we destroyed Al Qaeda. Despite missing its top figure, we have captured--in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq--other key leaders and destroyed its financial and information networks. So, if the preexisting network for this global jihad was disrupted, then what is fueling the international movement now...hmmm, could it be that some totally unjustified action of the power all these medieval thugs resent so has inflated their PR campaign depicting their enemies as imperialists?

The only thing needed to completely puncture your argument is to point out that al Qaeda is but a figurehead organization which represents just one of many groups in the same Islamic Jihadist movement. There were jihadis who were attacking around the world trying to gain territory, power, resources and converts and who were killing and injuring non-Muslims before 911.

And even if every single al Qaeda member were captured and killed and the word al Qaeda was never again mentioned, there would STILL be and still WOULD HAVE BEEN jihadists who were intent upon creating a global Islamic government.

You are using yesterdays paradigms to assess today's realities and it only fits in your own mind. This is not your father's war.

[TheWOAT]

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft, Citing Insufficient Troop Levels, the Need for War Deterrents, Rangel Hopes to Reinstate Draft - CBS News

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Is that even true? I doubt it is.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wow. This is a pretty idiotic statement. Of all the stupid reasons to institute a draft.

The strength of our military comes from it being all-volunteer. Conscript armies suck.

If we need more soldiers we should pay them more.

Do you think that our soldiers in WWII should have just been paid incentives to join up rather than being drafted?

[The Left]

no need to reinstate the draft.. just get the f@ck out now

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

no need to reinstate the draft.. just get the f@ck out now

What do you mean, right now? You propse leaving Iraq in the middle of the same kind of crisis the British left them in? The process that led to a brutal, totalitarian nation ruled by the minority?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we ever should have gone there in the first place, but cut-and-run is rediculous.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

no need to reinstate the draft.. just get the f@ck out now

If you are a jihadi or a supporter or an apologist then your statement makes sense.

If not then you really need to stop saying ignorant things like that.

If you care about freedom in the world or the 12 million Muslims who voted for freedom in Iraq you need to read about what will happen if we leave.

THEN you'd sing a different tune.

That is IF you aren't a jihadi or a supporter or an apologist.

[The Left]

pull out now. it won't be a fun situation but we have no business being there.

all things said and done, its time to move on and get out.... delaying it only delays the inevitable.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

pull out now. it won't be a fun situation but we have no business being there.

all things said and done, its time to move on and get out.... delaying it only delays the inevitable.

What about basic humanitarianism? I thought you were a member of "The Left".

[Kevin]

The Left you keep repeating the same thing while ignoring all the comments around you that pretty much make your demands sound silly.

It would be irresponsible to pull out now. And would just gain us more enemies.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

pull out now. it won't be a fun situation but we have no business being there.

all things said and done, its time to move on and get out.... delaying it only delays the inevitable.

If someone is armed and going to rape a friend of yours your actions would be to stand aside. Your advice to her would be to 'hurry up, lie down, unzip and spread legs.' Why prevent the inevitable, right?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by marden 

If someone is armed and going to rape a friend of yours your actions would be to stand aside. Your advice to her would be to 'hurry up, lie down, unzip and spread legs.' Why prevent the inevitable, right?

You have quite a knack for the tasteless non-sequiter.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You have quite a knack for the tasteless non-sequiter.

You stated what I thought.

I think the anaogy is flawed, but I am not going to bother with a debate of semantics when I agree with the central premise.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

If someone is armed and going to rape a friend of yours your actions would be to stand aside. Your advice to her would be to 'hurry up, lie down, unzip and spread legs.' Why prevent the inevitable, right?

If you can prevent it, it isn't inevitable. He said we were delaying the inevitable.

[The Left]

why keep giving up blood for oil.. its just stupid..we won the election, cut off funding, get out now.

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

why keep giving up blood for oil.. its just stupid..we won the election, cut off funding, get out now.

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

I think, I think, I think...I think you are using something other than facts as a rationale for what you THINK.

[Kevin]

I thought the blood for oil slant was the OLD rah rah pom pom slogan. People are still using it?

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

That's sarcasm right?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by The Left 

why keep giving up blood for oil.. its just stupid..we won the election, cut off funding, get out now.

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

Yes, exactly what happened in Somalia after we pulled out.



If it was all hate directed at the US, there wouldn't be as many attacks against civilian targets.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by marden 

I think, I think, I think...I think you are using something other than facts as a rationale for what you THINK.

my opinion. get over it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you can prevent it, it isn't inevitable. He said we were delaying the inevitable.

Oh. My mistake. Why DELAY the inevitable?

Why? Because you don't know it's inevitable. Some people were saying it was inevitable before we started. Many of those people were the enemy trying to bring about just this kind of response.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

why keep giving up blood for oil.. its just stupid..we won the election, cut off funding, get out now.

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

The "We" that you refer to is middle america, not the far left. The people have decided that a new direction in Iraq should be taken. They have not decided to run away scared and allow hundreds of thousands die for no good reason.

If the U.S. military pulls out now, the civil war that they are not doing a very good job at quelling will become full blown. The government will collapse, and there will be mob rule until radicals take over. Saddam Huissein, bastard that he was, ruled with an iron fist. Each rebellion was quelled by him. There has been a lot of tension in Iraq for a long time. Now there is not nearly as much stopping the unrest. If we leave quickly, Iraq will descend into chaos.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by The Left 

why keep giving up blood for oil.. its just stupid..we won the election, cut off funding, get out now.

You're gonna have to wait until January. Until then, Republicans are in the majority. Besides, the Dems have been funding the war in Iraq since day 1. That isn't going to change.

if the U.S. Army pulls out I think everyone would be shocked at how fast things would return to peace and tranquility in Iraq as there would be no reason for the continued violence.

Now I'm sure you are the same guy that gave us the "3-prong" assessment of neo-conservatives.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

my opinion. get over it.

Your opinion is easily get 'overable' for me. Too bad you are stuck with it.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That's sarcasm right?

no it is not sarcasm. I do believe things would quickly become peaceful in Iraq once the U.S. troops leave... there would be no more occupation to rebel against.

its very simple.

It won't be the end of the world for the U.S. to pull out. Look at Vietnam, Bush is there now visiting isn't he? Seems to be doing quite nicely without U.S. occupation forces.

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You have quite a knack for the tasteless non-sequiter.

It seems the video/computer/gaming/hip hop/action film inured generation have a difficult time really understanding the harm of what they propose. For them it's all just words and quickly moving colorful images.

My metaphor was designed to get beyond that cool calm callousness and reach his humanity.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

no it is not sarcasm. I do believe things would quickly become peaceful in Iraq once the U.S. troops leave... there would be no more occupation to rebel against.

its very simple.

It won't be the end of the world for the U.S. to pull out. Look at Vietnam, Bush is there now visiting isn't he? Seems to be doing quite nicely without U.S. occupation forces.

Please explain, by your logic, the sectarian violence. Explain Shiites killing Sunnis and vice-versa.

You have a very simple understand of the situation.

In Vietnam, they wanted unity. In Iraq, there are scores to settle that have nothing to do with us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

no it is not sarcasm. I do believe things would quickly become peaceful in Iraq once the U.S. troops leave... there would be no more occupation to rebel against.

its very simple.

It won't be the end of the world for the U.S. to pull out. Look at Vietnam, Bush is there now visiting isn't he? Seems to be doing quite nicely without U.S. occupation forces.

Oh there is no doubt that if all we wanted to do was to create peace all we need to do is to stop opposing the enemies of freedom.

If that is your answer to every time there is strife resulting from someone who tries to violate your rights then I would like to nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Your solution for World Peace is simply to GIVE UP!

Congrats! Yay!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Please explain, by your logic, the sectarian violence. Explain Shiites killing Sunnis and vice-versa.

You have a very simple understand of the situation.

In Vietnam, they wanted unity. In Iraq, there are scores to settle that have nothing to do with us.

And that's not even looking at who has what to gain or lose if we leave.

Iran is already planning on owning Iraq.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

And that's not even looking at who has what to gain or lose if we leave.

Iran is already planning on owning Iraq.

You think so? I have heard thing about Iranian funding and support. Iran worries me. How things go in N. Korea will weigh heavily on the minds of leaders in Tehran, I think.

[Spliffdaddy]

Once we left Vietnam the problem got sorted out quickly. They simply killed hundreds of thousands of people and the rest got the message.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Once we left Vietnam the problem got sorted out quickly. They simply killed hundreds of thousands of people and the rest got the message.

Exterminations are much cleaner when there are only two sides involved. Kind of makes you wonder.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

You think so? I have heard thing about Iranian funding and support. Iran worries me. How things go in N. Korea will weigh heavily on the minds of leaders in Tehran, I think.

You HAVE or you HAVE NOT?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

You HAVE or you HAVE NOT?

I was unclear. I heard about the Iranians funding insurgents in Iraq. I wish I wasn't so lazy as to not Google it myself.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I thought the blood for oil slant was the OLD rah rah pom pom slogan. People are still using it?

oil? yup people are still using it. the mantra? not so much anymore - oil companies are not all that excited about putting money into infrastructure in a country on the brink of collapse. it's bad business sense and dangerous. that's why any oil-related negotiations take place in jordan and not iraq.

in 2003 bush signed an Executive Order which "provides an extraordinarily broad legal shield for any and all contractors and mercenaries working in Iraq on behalf of US corporations in any oil related enterprise."

Executive Order 13303 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

even bush has said "[access to oil] is why we'll fight in iraq, and that is why we'll win in iraq." it's simply an extension of the carter doctrine.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061105-3.html

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I thought the blood for oil slant was the OLD rah rah pom pom slogan. People are still using it?

I'm still disappointed over how little the war in Iraq has helped gas prices. Those freakin' liberals promised me oil!