Draft comming again?

[BoKiana]

Ok, now think back to the last Presidential election. The war news was in full swing, protestors around every corner in California. . . even nekkid ones. *shiver*, and as one of their old taglines, the Democrats yelled loudly that if the nation re-elected Bush, the Draft was inevitable (just one old news article about it linked).

However, now the Democrats was to put the draft in themselves!

This calls for a bolded, italic and underlined

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!?!?

Here is a blip about it.

From the blog article

On January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D-NY] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty-two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican-controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.

One of the few notable supporters of the draft was Congressman John Murtha [D-PA]. Congressman Murtha reportedly is preparing to campaign to take over the highly influential position of House Majority Leader. Congressman Rangel is set to take over the House Ways and Means Committee. Two proponents of a military draft will most likely take over two key leadership positions in the new Democrat-contolled House. Surely they were not lying to America when they proposed a draft? They would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?

They warn us to not re-elect Bush or else the Draft would be put in, and the MOMENT they grab power they push for it themselves?

O.o? Da hell?

Now, please note, I understand that the website I got this from is not a main stream news source. I can't verify what this site has reported, and I'm currently not in the mood for surfing Google/Wikipedia/etc to find out more. If someone else wants to and finds more sites that could prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, then please do so and post it here. I heard about the news on the radio and looked it up to show you guys. But since it's not showing their sources or links on the article, I can't say it's true to a T. Take the website with a grain of salt, and look for other sites that could show what's going on.

[Detrius]

the Democrats yelled loudly that if the nation re-elected Bush, the Draft was inevitable (just one old news article about it linked).

Well, Bush got re-elected, so they're kinda consistent?

[BoKiana]

Not really, considering that their implied message that by voting in a Democratic President would hold back the waves of Republican votes that would make the draft a reality.

But they are being consistent in a vague term.

[Deckard Canine]

I heard about this just a couple weeks ago, even though it purportedly got a lot of press at the time. If the draft ever passes (which I optimistically doubt), I may never vote for a majority party candidate at the national level again.

[BrockthePaine]

I heard about this just a couple weeks ago, even though it purportedly got a lot of press at the time. If the draft ever passes (which I optimistically doubt), I may never vote for a majority party candidate at the national level again.

The Draft is a third-rail topic in politics, as no doubt the Democrats who support it shall soon discover; for if we reinstate the draft we must determine whether to make it applicable for women as well as men.

My personal opinion on the subject is that every man of a military age should receive basic military training and then released to form the national militia; and the Regular Forces would be comprised solely of the volunteers, as they are now. There is certainly no harm in instilling a sense of discipline, ethic and responsibility in youngsters these days.

[ChronicMisadventures]

Now, please note, I understand that the website I got this from is not a main stream news source. I can't verify what this site has reported, and I'm currently not in the mood for surfing Google/Wikipedia/etc to find out more. If someone else wants to and finds more sites that could prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, then please do so and post it here. I heard about the news on the radio and looked it up to show you guys. But since it's not showing their sources or links on the article, I can't say it's true to a T. Take the website with a grain of salt, and look for other sites that could show what's going on.

Yup, I can confirm this. Rangel said over the weekend he plans to introduce the bill as soon as the new Congress comes in early next year. Note he didn't vote for it in 2003 when he introduced the bill. He's today stated this is because he "didn't want a yes-no vote", rather he "wants committee hearings". He's also trying to use race/class warfare by claiming this will "get all the Yale and Harvard students sent to Iraq".

Rangel is a long-time anti-white racist. I've seen him in live tv broadcasts make statements like "no middle-class white kid ever went to Vietnam" (my dad was one of those 'middle-class white kids' who did go, as a USAF medic). On another occasion he engaged in an on-air shouting match with a news host, refusing to believe the host's son was in the Marines in Iraq because "You're not poor! You're not black!". In that latter broadcast, he also dismissed out of hand all statistics that indicate the military is not made up entirely of poor black kids from the inner city.

...as a note, some demographics refered to on one news program today: The US military has a higher proportion of whites than the general population, more are from rural than urban areas, they tend to be primarily from middle-class backgrounds, and they're on average better educated than the general populace.

[Narnian]

I heard about this just a couple weeks ago, even though it purportedly got a lot of press at the time. If the draft ever passes (which I optimistically doubt), I may never vote for a majority party candidate at the national level again.

The Draft is a third-rail topic in politics, as no doubt the Democrats who support it shall soon discover; for if we reinstate the draft we must determine whether to make it applicable for women as well as men.

My personal opinion on the subject is that every man of a military age should receive basic military training and then released to form the national militia; and the Regular Forces would be comprised solely of the volunteers, as they are now. There is certainly no harm in instilling a sense of discipline, ethic and responsibility in youngsters these days.

I am inclined to agree (though Rangels' purpose does not appear to be the same as yours - his is purely political). Switzerland provides a good model to follow.

Plus the common experience is good for social bonding and bringing a sense of national unity.

[TMLutas]

I heard about this just a couple weeks ago, even though it purportedly got a lot of press at the time. If the draft ever passes (which I optimistically doubt), I may never vote for a majority party candidate at the national level again.

The Draft is a third-rail topic in politics, as no doubt the Democrats who support it shall soon discover; for if we reinstate the draft we must determine whether to make it applicable for women as well as men.

My personal opinion on the subject is that every man of a military age should receive basic military training and then released to form the national militia; and the Regular Forces would be comprised solely of the volunteers, as they are now. There is certainly no harm in instilling a sense of discipline, ethic and responsibility in youngsters these days.

If you think there's no harm, you haven't been thinking much on the topic or observing how other nations use their conscripts. Germany's socialized medicine system would collapse within a year if the FRG gave up conscription. The Army wants it gone and has for some time now but the Health ministry always gets it put back in so the krankenkasse system survives another year.

Do you think that the powers that be in this country won't take advantage of really low cost labor? Think again.

[TMLutas]

I heard about this just a couple weeks ago, even though it purportedly got a lot of press at the time. If the draft ever passes (which I optimistically doubt), I may never vote for a majority party candidate at the national level again.

The Draft is a third-rail topic in politics, as no doubt the Democrats who support it shall soon discover; for if we reinstate the draft we must determine whether to make it applicable for women as well as men.

My personal opinion on the subject is that every man of a military age should receive basic military training and then released to form the national militia; and the Regular Forces would be comprised solely of the volunteers, as they are now. There is certainly no harm in instilling a sense of discipline, ethic and responsibility in youngsters these days.

I am inclined to agree (though Rangels' purpose does not appear to be the same as yours - his is purely political). Switzerland provides a good model to follow.

Plus the common experience is good for social bonding and bringing a sense of national unity.

That ship's sailed. Switzerland follows a certain politics that permits them the military system they have. Their biggest military adventure this century (and last) is supplying the papacy with its military. The US has other obligations. We need expeditionary forces that the Swiss system is particularly ill suited to provide because we've promised to do it to countries around the world and the entire global security system depends on us keeping our word. If we started right now, it would still take decades to responsibly unwind the whole collective security edifice to the point where we could do the swiss military system.

[BrockthePaine]

I wasn't suggesting the EXACT Swiss system - I'm well aware of the differences between ours and theirs. To clarify what I was proposing:

1. Mandatory military TRAINING for all male citizens. Weapons training, athletics, basic small-unit tactics, history, teamwork, technical training, etc. Once this is over, the conscripts are sent back home, and have to report once a year for a weekend, say, to requalify on certain aspects of their training (say, shooting and an obstacle course, or a test in whatever technical specialty they're in). Other than that one weekend, they're good. However, during a major military crisis, say an invasion by the French (heehaw), they would be able to fight. No internal police work or external deployments, JUST invasion defense. To this end, they will NEVER have officers above the company level, and those officers would be elected locally from the pool of retired professionally-trained officers in the area. They would be the Militia: every man able to bear arms, having been trained in their use. They would not be paid unless they were in a conflict zone. Equipment-wise, they'd have light vehicles, such as Humvees, but no tanks nor LAVs or IFVs. In a conflict, they'd be light infantry, either operating as a strategic reserve or as partisan units in the war zone. All the peacenik boys would be given the option to serve in the Peace Corps for a few months and meet a minimum satisfaction level.

2. Volunteer Professional Military - basically what we've got now. They'd have the tanks and the IFVs and the APCs and the Apaches and all the gizmos. These would be the people who'd be sent overseas, if necessary.

[Calbeck]

the Democrats yelled loudly that if the nation re-elected Bush, the Draft was inevitable (just one old news article about it linked).

Well, Bush got re-elected, so they're kinda consistent?

"Elect us, not Bush, or there'll be a draft..."

"Yay! We're elected! Now for the draft!"

Consistent? Not very...

[RHJunior]

They want the draft precisely because they KNOW it will be vastly unpopular... they are proposing it in hopes of recreating the anti-war/draft-dodging frenzy of the 60s.

They're calculating that if the draft is implemented, the war effort will become incredibly unpopular... and so will the military, too, and anything else typically associated with the Right.

[Deckard Canine]

That I can believe.

[BoKiana]

1. Mandatory military TRAINING for all male citizens.

But not all men are capable of military level abilities. For example, myself. I am almost a complete opposite of the Bo seen in the comic. Slowly degrading eyesight, a bad physical apperience and abilities, and apart and above that, I'm unsuited for military service on a mental level (fighting depression issues and old suicidal thoughts/actions). An Army recruiter once said that if I could overcome my mental and physical setbacks I'd be better suited for Navy SEALs rather than an army; but that was more than likely (IMO) him just trying to get my hopes up so I would join.

However, I degress.

Why only males? Aren't there women in the military, and aren't some of those women just as good fighters as the men?

Also, if such an invasion were to happen, what are the women to do? Just sit in the home and wave at the men fighting off the invaders? Hide in a basement hugging their knees? It doesn't seem to me that the invading badguys would care who they're shooting at, man, woman or child, just as long as they're American, and leaving the other half of our population, in a way, defenseless, doesn't seem like a good choice.

How would you handle the unqualified cases, (such as myself and others) who are not able to handle the simple stuff like Boot Camp, let alone the more advanced training?
And what would you do if a draftee failed their weekend retesting? Send them back into the military to do it over again until they can pass; or let them go with a 4F on their backside?

If that were the case (letting them go), why go to the trouble training them in the first place? The military's budget isn't infinite. One of the reasons the military favors the volunteer army was cost, quality and replacement issues. Why waste money training men in the military who don't or can't be there once the training is over? That money, time and equipment is better spent on those who want to be there, and will be there to make good use of the money the government spent on him.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Mr. Rangel (D-Wackyland) is merely doing political posturing, and the latest news is that Pelosi, Hoyer, and the new whip have told him to shut up about it.
If the Dems wanted to reinstate the draft, they'd have to confront the issue that Congress sets the military manpower limits, and since all the services are over establishment by close to the maximum allowed there is no room for draftees.

Apparently even the Democrats have figured out that demanding a draft for a military that is already at full legal capacity would be a pretty stupid maneuver - and since they don't actually want to spend the money on increasing the size of the military when they could spend the money on unemployment benefits instead, it's not going to happen.

[Squeaky Bunny]

Rangle and Conyers have both been trying to "stick it to the rich whites" for decades. Whether it is to force people into military conscription or make them pay restitution for slavery.

What galls me are the idiots that want to put convicted criminals in the service instead of sending them to prison.

Personally I like Heinlein's ideas on the military.

[ChronicMisadventures]

They want the draft precisely because they KNOW it will be vastly unpopular... they are proposing it in hopes of recreating the anti-war/draft-dodging frenzy of the 60s.

They're calculating that if the draft is implemented, the war effort will become incredibly unpopular... and so will the military, too, and anything else typically associated with the Right.

What they're not calculating is that if they're stupid enough to pass it, Rangel's a nominee for 'First to be fragged' by any number of the new "recruits". ...Hannity & Colmes took a camera crew into Rangel's district Monday to get the views of his constitutents on the issue. Let's just say that they were less than supportive of their elected official.

Comment from a relative a few years back pretty much explains it all: Military wants people who'll be career and stay there willingly. They don't want Joe Smith from out on the East Side to spend a tour of duty learning how to make explosives out of common household items and then release him back into the civilian population with an axe to grind against the government.

[Jwrebholz]

I prefer the all-volunteer system, personally--and for purely selfish reasons I assure you.

I am a craven coward. I despise violence and doubt I could ever raise a weapon to another human. I'd be a liability to any unit I'm in of any conflict except as artillery fodder. My vision is bad, my overall physical health is poor (some joint problems and an arrythmia contribute to this). Even if there were a draft they'd never take me, and I don't think they'd take me if I volunteered.

That's a large reason why I hold a lot of respect for our military. They go out every day and do things I know I'll never have the physical or mental fortitude to do. If by some unfortunate chance I am forced into service, I'll report--but I'll make sure to get my affairs in order before I do.

Hey, at least I'm honest about things.

[Earl McClaw]

I prefer the all-volunteer system, personally--and for purely selfish reasons I assure you.

Considering the reasons you cited, I expect if you ever got drafted you'd either be classified as "unacceptable" or be assigned a rear-area non-combat position like office clerk. (I've heard it takes 9-10 people to keep one combat soldier in the field.)

[Wanderwolf]

To be entirely fair, Rangel doesn't expect his draft bill to pass; in fact, he doesn't want it to pass. The last time he proposed it, 7 January 2003, he voted against it as soon as it hit the floor.

Basically, he just wants to have a controversial bill up for debate (not consideration), so he can extend his fifteen minutes of fame. Speaking as an actor? The man's an un-curable ham.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

P.S.: I figured I'd stick my sources down here:

Townhall.com, "Meet the Old Boss".

Townhall.com, "Draft the Congress and Leave My Kid Alone".

Not the clearest of sources, sometimes, but WSJ and CNN back them up on the record.