Rangel: Bring back the draft

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Nov 19, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Houston Chronicle

    Okay, okay, I get the reason behind this, but it's still a really bad idea. The people just elected this Congress to find a way out of the war, and one of the first things you tell them is you want to reinstate the draft??? :eek:

    Here's the first fire Pelosi needs to put out.
     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    That never really went away so if the draft were to reinstate wouldn't that be used? Now I say there is no chance in hell of this happening and if it does the Dems can kiss goodbye any chance they have of another term.
     
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    Rangel has been pushing this idea for a long time and it is still going nowhere. It isn't that he doesn't have some fine points to his argument, but the idea of drafting more men and women in a time of a war of choice is just a non-starter. Right after 9-11 would have made sense. The day Bush invaded Iraq showed this to be the wrong path to take. The last thing we need is more cannon fodder for Bush or his successor to use.

    I don't think Pelosi is worried this fire will spread.
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    The idea is not to give Bush more canon fodder, it's to make it more difficult to wage unpopular wars. With an "all volunteer military" you can't make the argument that everyone is in the military by choice and that they "knew there could be a war when they signed up." The war becomes the military's war rather than the nation's war. The same issues applies to taxes. Waging an expensive war without raising taxes is part of the same issues: it hides the effects of the war from the majority of the population.

    It's also about the idea of national service: the idea that everyone owes their country x number of years of service, be it as a soldier, doctor, teacher...
     
  5. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    I don't have an ounce of faith that such a draft would have stopped someone like Bush from invading Iraq. Idealogues like Bush, Cheney & Rummy justify everything on the basis of fear and, as you can see even now, they don't give a hoot how popular that war might be. Even if they are the last man standing on their side of the argument, they "know" they are right and everybody else just doesn't "get it".
     
  6. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    Milo, I understand the why of Rangel's proposal, which is why I said he had some "fine points," but to institute a draft in this situation is to give Bush more cannon fodder - no matter Charlie's intentions. It is also why it will fail as a proposal. No one, except the honorable Congressman from Harlem and a few allies, will accept drafting their community's children to be sent to this insane war.
     
  7. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #7
    You just won the grand-slam. Yes, fear is the motivational force behind what support there is for the war (throwing out the neo-crusaders and profiteers). We were all scared after 9/11, including those of us with real-life experience and (even) trained not to over-react. Of all of the emotions, fear is arguably the most powerful.

    The Bush administration predated the fear in their citizens to push forth an agenda which, in retrospect, is as fearful as the 9/11 attack. They continue to use this weapon of fear against anyone incapable, or unwilling to to come to terms with reality.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    A better idea is to elect better leaders, Those eager for war are allways the ones who never fought in one. A draft isnt the answer, a congress who is doing its oversite of the executive branch is. Republicans & Democrats failed this nation letting this president who had nothing take us to war for his WMDs.
     
  9. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    That's one way to increase the Canadian polulation, scare the kids over the border. :p
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    1960 - "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country".

    2006 - "Ask not only what you can do for you, but what everyone else can do for you too".
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Bingo. The draft failed to keep us out of the Spanish-American War (and the resulting morass in the Phillipeans), Korea, and Vietnam just to name a few. Furthermore, an army of volunteers makes a better army, especially in complex and difficult conflicts where you need more than just cannon fodder.

    The problem in Iraq has always been poor strategy and even poorer execution owing to Rumsfeld's ideology and the abuses of various contractors. We need more troops in Iraq, but we don't need a larger military, especially the one we had in Vietnam.

    What we really need are better leaders and smarter citizens. So, you know we're doomed.
     
  12. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    I agree that a draft in place in 2003 probably wouldn't have stopped Bushco from their plans. But it would have made it a bit more likely. Same with a statement from the government that said that wars demand sacrifice so we're instituting a ___ tax (or raising taxes in general) to pay for it. Put in either of those terms, there would have been a lot more clamor against the war, which, in the absence of backbones, would have given a lot more politicians the ability to vote against authorizing the war (which, of course, isn't in reality necessary for the president anyway).

    I'd be interested in seeing some kind of study proving that the quality of soldiers is better, all things being equal, in an "all volunteer" military than in a drafted military. I think that to some degree the draft military gets a bad reputation because of the low morale in Vietnam, which might have had something to do with the nature of the war.

    I think that the value of the all volunteer military has more to do with the ability to use those soldiers in wars of choice than it does with having high-quality soldiers. It also has a lot to do with the direction that the government has been heading for years, contracting with providers rather than doing the work themselves for various costs reasons.

    Still, I'd be interested in the study.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    It's my understanding that the Pentagon did studies on this especially after the Vietnam War and the evidence suggests that volunteer soldiers are better. Some of this comes from the entrance exam, which eliminates some candidates, and some of this comes from the military's many money for college programs.
    Furthermore, history suggests that volunteer troops, as opposed to mercenaries, are always better than conscripts.
     
  14. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    Ya know, that's just crazy enough to work. ;) :D
     
  15. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #15
    just draft congressional people's kids, congressmen and senators, as well as prez, vice prez, Sec. of Defense. Sec of state.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    I can see why he's doing this, and the points he's trying to make, but most people will not. It's just going to be used by the opposition against him and the Dems. Pelosi should do something to point out that most of the Dems disagree, or this will hurt them.
     
  17. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
  18. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #18
    I find it incredibly ironic that after all of the bitching that Democrats have done about the President wanting to reinstate the draft to fuel his "war machine" and all of the bitching that many of you have done against him for supposedly wanting the draft, the legislation in support of a draft is coming from a Democrat.

    I guess the difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least in this case, is that the Republicans want people to want to join the military, so that we can have an all-volunteer military... whereas the Democrat elitists are happy just to draft any poor schmucks who don't have any other options.
     
  19. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #19
    I'm glad you noted that the legislation is coming from a Democrat...because that's about as far as it's going to get.

    As to your second paragraph, that's a pretty off the wall.
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    Clay, I think you're reacting to a situation that is much more complex than you are portraying.

    People have been _afraid_ that the president would institute a draft, or have to. People have been mad that he's instituted a "back door" draft instead.

    Republicans want people to want to join the military. Why they want that is another question. The idea that democrats (as opposed to Repblicans) want poor schmucks who don't have other options in the military and are elitists for it is, well, inaccurate. There are "elite" people who are republicans and elite people who are democrats--same with poor people and middle class people. Trying to portray democrats as elitists who are just trying to avoid war is, well, idiotic.
     
  21. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #21
    "Back door draft"? Nuh uh. There is no draft. No one is being FORCIBLY CONSCRIPTED into the US military right now. So drop cutesy terms like "back door draft", please. Right now there is not ONE draftee in the US military.

    Misreading what I wrote is, well, idiotic. Please show me the part where I said that all Democrats are elitists. Hint: There is no such part.
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    hence the "back door" part. it means that some troops are not allowed to leave service when their terms were supposed to be up.

    or are you denying that's happening?
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    You know what I'm referring to: stop-loss programs. That's why I put "back door" in quotes. I know that's not what it's called.

    Look at the construction of this sentence:

    The first caluse sets us up for a cetegorical distinction between Republicans and Democrats. The next statement is that Republicans want people to join the military. Given the first clause, this would mean that all republicans want this, and no democrats want this. The next statement is that Democrat elitists just want to draft the poor. Once again, given the opening clause this would mean that (because this is a difference between republicans and democrats) that no republicans want to draft the poor. Also, since this is a sentence about categorical differences between democrats and republicans, it implies that democrats are elitists and republicans are not.

    This is how sentences work.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Calling up reservists comes pretty close.

    Weasel words, and you know it.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    There is a backdoor draft, having these guys doing 3 or 4 tours is nuts, grabbing people who retired or left the military the past couple years is another back door, grabing the National guard is another. Telling people they have to continue service though they did the time required in their contract is. Lets face it we have a ClusterF..k Iraq policy, Now ask yourself is Iraq worth sacrificing our family members for? Hell No. This is why Rangel wants the draft. He's just playing politics. They ought to be focusing on how our Great Leader got us in Iraq when Bin Laden & his gang were Saudi's.
     

Share This Page