Rangel wants to bring back the draft [Archive]

K.C.

11-19-2006, 05:22 PM

<a href="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?ncid=NWS00010000000001">http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?ncid=NWS00010000000001</a>Charlie Rangel has brought this up before. It looks like he's going to try again. His basic premise is that by reinstituting the draft, it will:a) end the Iraq warb) make the government think long and hard before it commits to a ground invasion ever again.  because he believes that the threat of the kids of your every day ham-n-egger getting drafted will make voters and government officials more conscious of the long term effects of their actions. Obviously, this has no chance of ever passing. But it's an interesting point he's making.  

This message was edited by K.C. on 11-19-06 @ 9:34 PM

Bulldogcakes

11-19-2006, 05:24 PM

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?I'm so glad we got those sensible Democrats running things now.

nwm

11-19-2006, 05:28 PM

The draft will not happen. I say this as a person who has served for over 10 years in the military. The draft does not work, it brings in people that do not want to serve and causes more problems then it will solve.   Chalrie Rangel loves getting his name in the papers, that is the only reason he is bringing the draft up. Basically he is a idiot!!!

K.C.

11-19-2006, 05:28 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.  So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?I'm so glad we got those sensible Democrats running things now.  That's such a Hannity-esque misquote. First off, when you get defeated in a vote 402-2, that's not a party line thing. Second, if you read his quotes on it, whether he's right or wrong, his point is to use it as a deterent on the government. I certainly don't want to see it passed because, being of a ripe drafting age, I don't want that even a possibility. Even if he claims his intentions are good, somebody could easily misuse it down the road. But he does have a point about how so many of these gung-ho war people would have totally different opinions if their kids faced the threat of serving. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 11-19-06 @ 9:32 PM

K.C.

11-19-2006, 05:29 PM

nwm wrote: The draft will not happen. I say this as a person who has served for over 10 years in the military. The draft does not work, it brings in people that do not want to serve and causes more problems then it will solve.   Chalrie Rangel loves getting his name in the papers, that is the only reason he is bringing the draft up. Basically he is a idiot!!! I know...I didn't start the topic as if it was actually a possibility...but more along the lines of discussing his theory behind proposing it. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 11-19-06 @ 9:30 PM

ADF

11-19-2006, 05:30 PM

Ha ha... I already did eleven years in the military!  Suckers!

whiskyriver

11-19-2006, 05:33 PM

I'm too old to go.....I think

DarkHippie

11-19-2006, 05:37 PM

Rangel has said in the past that right now there is a racial/socioeconomic imbalance in armed forces.  most of the recruiting is done in the poor areas where it is the most favorable way out.  In the suburbs and among the wealthy people are more likely to go to college.  (this doesn't count for officer school)If there was a draft then all of us would be fighting the war rather than just the poor.

Don Stugots

11-19-2006, 05:43 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:    Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.   So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?   can you picture all of us standing in formation in boot camp?  how much trouble would we get into for making wisecracks?

whiskyriver

11-19-2006, 05:43 PM

DarkHippie wrote: Rangel has said in the past
that right now there is a racial/socioeconomic imbalance in armed forces.ÿ most of
the recruiting is done in the poor areas where it is the most favorable way out.ÿ In
the suburbs and among the wealthy people are more likely to go to college.ÿ (this
doesn't count for officer school)If there was a draft then all of us would
be fighting the war rather than just the poor.

that is true (but so logical it would never pass) but i would never want my son to
go,and he will be 17 in march.

Bulldogcakes

11-19-2006, 05:44 PM

K.C. wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?I'm so glad we got those sensible Democrats running things now. That's such a Hannity-esque misquote. First off, when you get defeated in a vote 402-2, that's not a party line thing. Second, if you read his quotes on it, whether he's right or wrong, his point is to use it as a deterent on the government. I certainly don't want to see it passed because, being of a ripe drafting age, I don't want that even a possibility. Even if he claims his intentions are good, somebody could easily misuse it down the road. But he does have a point about how so many of these gung-ho war people would have totally different opinions if their kids faced the threat of serving. No, its a hideous idea and this is what happens when you cram race into areas where it has nothing to do with anything. THE GENERALS at the Pentagon dont want a draft, they want a force of motivated recruits who want to be there. They dont want to waste their time babysitting a bunch of losers."Misquote"? I pulled it directly from the article. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the author.

K.C.

11-19-2006, 05:47 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Bulldogcakes wrote"Misquote"? I pulled it directly from the article. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the author. ÿ<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I apologize...the correct assessment should have been "butchering of context."

Landblast

11-19-2006, 05:47 PM

ADF wrote: Ha ha... I already did eleven years in the military! Suckers!

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 06:08 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">DarkHippie wrote: Rangel has said in the past that right now there is a racial/socioeconomic imbalance in armed forces.ÿ most of the recruiting is done in the poor areas where it is the most favorable way out.ÿ In the suburbs and among the wealthy people are more likely to go to college.ÿ (this doesn't count for officer school)If there was a draft then all of us would be fighting the war rather than just the poor.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

this is why it may work like Rangel said. How many rich people or how many of these politicians that send all these kids off to war actually would still want or vote for a war knowing everyone can go off and to war?

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 06:10 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Bulldogcakes wrote: K.C. wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: ÿRangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?I'm so glad we got those sensible Democrats running things now. That's such a Hannity-esque misquote. First off, when you get defeated in a vote 402-2, that's not a party line thing. Second, if you read his quotes on it, whether he's right or wrong, his point is to use it as a deterent on the government. I certainly don't want to see it passed because, being of a ripe drafting age, I don't want that even a possibility. Even if he claims his intentions are good, somebody could easily misuse it down the road. But he does have a point about how so many of these gung-ho war people would have totally different opinions if their kids faced the threat of serving. No, its a hideous idea and this is what happens when you cram race into areas where it has nothing to do with anything. THE GENERALS at the Pentagon dont want a draft, they want a force of motivated recruits who want to be there. They dont want to waste their time babysitting a bunch of losers."Misquote"? I pulled it directly from the article. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the author. ÿ<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I didnt hear him say anything about race he is talking about class poor vs rich.

HBox

11-19-2006, 06:12 PM

This won't happen and even if it did rich kids still aren't getting drafted. they got out of it before and they'd find ways to get out of it again and again anytime they'd try.Still, this is fucking horrible PR to be putting out there as you enter office, a horrible idea that no one wants and has no chance of happening, but it gets attached to the Democrats anyway. Wonderful.[/size] 

This message was edited by HBox on 11-19-06 @ 10:12 PM

UnknownPD

11-19-2006, 06:52 PM

Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since.

johnniewalker

11-19-2006, 07:05 PM

UnknownPD wrote: Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since. I hope I don't get yelled at for saying this, but I'm all for the draft. I wish more people had that sort of nationalism that comes from duty to your country. I'd really wish all kids would be in it also, no college exceptions. I think it would hit home with a lot more people and we wouldn't have this disconnected nature to the war that a lot of people have. I also think we would have very different perspectives on the war, the army, and our war. Our culture has very strange divisions and our volunteer army is another way that splits it up. I second UnknownPD 

This message was edited by johnniewalker on 11-19-06 @ 11:13 PM

Don Stugots

11-19-2006, 07:08 PM

i could see every high school grad going for 2 years and ONLY 2 YEARS before going to college. 

Gvac

11-19-2006, 07:41 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:    Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.    I've got flat feet!My vision is awful!I'm a conscientious objector!

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 07:47 PM

johnniewalker wrote: UnknownPD wrote: Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since.  I hope I don't get yelled at for saying this, but I'm all for the draft. I wish more people had that sort of nationalism that comes from duty to your country. I'd really wish all kids would be in it also, no college exceptions. I think it would hit home with a lot more people and we wouldn't have this disconnected nature to the war that a lot of people have. I also think we would have very different perspectives on the war, the army, and our war. Our culture has very strange divisions and our volunteer army is another way that splits it up. I second UnknownPD This message was edited by johnniewalker on 11-19-06 @ 11:13 PM I agree with both statements 100%. Most countries force every male no materr what their economic background to join the military for 2 years. I think it will do exactly what Rangel says, the elite/rich will think twice before starting wars.

spoon

11-19-2006, 07:51 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.  So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?I'm so glad we got those sensible Democrats running things now.  Yah bc he's not doing this to prove how sensible the Republicans were getting us into this bullshit.  It's a great point and will end this shit.  I hope it passes so we can see Cheney use his knowledge of deferments.  What a pro he is.  But hey, he knows war better than those who served and it shows with this one!   Way to catch the point of the bill that will never pass.

spoon

11-19-2006, 07:54 PM

spoon

11-19-2006, 07:57 PM

Campo wrote: DarkHippie wrote: Rangel has said in the past that right now there is a racial/socioeconomic imbalance in armed forces.  most of the recruiting is done in the poor areas where it is the most favorable way out.  In the suburbs and among the wealthy people are more likely to go to college.  (this doesn't count for officer school)If there was a draft then all of us would be fighting the war rather than just the poor. this is why it may work like Rangel said. How many rich people or how many of these politicians that send all these kids off to war actually would still want or vote for a war knowing everyone can go off and to war? Sorry to say it but, even if it did pass they'd find a way around it just like the 527 groups for lobbying and as someone said earlier it would surely be abused.  Yet I love striking fear in their hearts for once.  Stu, the crew here would end up doing the right thing and fight hard, I doubt we'd be the issue.  It what we're fighting for being the main issue bc I doubt highly people would be against a draft now to stop the events of WWII.

spoon

11-19-2006, 07:57 PM

K.C. wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote "Misquote"? I pulled it directly from the article. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the author.   I apologize...the correct assessment should have been "butchering of context." Look at that, humble and sly!

spoon

11-19-2006, 08:03 PM

johnniewalker wrote: UnknownPD wrote: Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since.  I hope I don't get yelled at for saying this, but I'm all for the draft. I wish more people had that sort of nationalism that comes from duty to your country. I'd really wish all kids would be in it also, no college exceptions. I think it would hit home with a lot more people and we wouldn't have this disconnected nature to the war that a lot of people have. I also think we would have very different perspectives on the war, the army, and our war. Our culture has very strange divisions and our volunteer army is another way that splits it up. I second UnknownPD This message was edited by johnniewalker on 11-19-06 @ 11:13 PM Good points by both of you bc this would mean a lot more middle class would be in the army, not just officiers school and ROTC.  However, the problem comes in when we are in very unpopular wars like Iraq and Vietnam.  Then you run into many problems which Rangel believes this may help.  Basically we won't use war as a profit maker for the few on the backs of the poor.  WWII's outcomes isn't just oil, it established the US and GB as the world's main, and until Russia caught up and destroyed it's economy, supplier of arms and aircraft to the world.  This has a major tie to oil and the military industrial complex but I may be going too deep.

spoon

11-19-2006, 08:05 PM

STUGOTS1 wrote: i could see every high school grad going for 2 years and ONLY 2 YEARS before going to college.  I really think this isn't that horrible an idea.  It surely would influence voting in the future knowing you have kids coming into college age.  I doubt the blind flag wavers would be so apt to vote for these war hungry exploiters (is that a word?) if it ifluenced their kids.

spoon

11-19-2006, 08:06 PM

OK, I'm caught up.  Go Chargers!!!!

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 09:03 PM

spoon wrote: STUGOTS1 wrote: i could see every high school grad going for 2 years and ONLY 2 YEARS before going to college.  I really think this isn't that horrible an idea.  It surely would influence voting in the future knowing you have kids coming into college age.  I doubt the blind flag wavers would be so apt to vote for these war hungry exploiters (is that a word?) if it ifluenced their kids.I also think it will get young people to vote knowing that polotics actually effect them.

keithy_19

11-19-2006, 09:11 PM

STUGOTS1 wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:    Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.  So, everybody on this board ready for a tour of duty in Iraq?   can you picture all of us standing in formation in boot camp?  how much trouble would we get into for making wisecracks?   That made me happy. :)

keithy_19

11-19-2006, 09:15 PM

Though I can't serve in the armed forces, if I was able to I would more then willingly serve. I wouldn't be gung ho for it, but I would assume my responsibility as an American citizen.

FMJeff

11-19-2006, 09:31 PM

can you imagine an american military full of soldiers forced into duty? this guy is so out of touch with mainstream america, its hilarious. the same people who post goofy emo parodies on youtube are gonna stand the post?

keithy_19

11-19-2006, 09:35 PM

FMJeff wrote: can you imagine an american military full of soldiers forced into duty? this guy is so out of touch with mainstream america, its hilarious. the same people who post goofy emo parodies on youtube are gonna stand the post?  Tell them the enemy stole their mascara and sister's jeans. 

This message was edited by keithy_19 on 11-20-06 @ 1:37 AM

spoon

11-19-2006, 09:35 PM

Yes, to be truthful a lot of countries do this and it works very well.  There would be an adjustment period, but once there and it's a law one really can't decide to stay home without cause.  Hell, it might also help people keep in shape just a fucking little these days too. 

CaptClown

11-20-2006, 05:45 AM

It really isn't going to work out like he thinks. The rich kids, who don't want to fight, will still find a way to get deferments and/or will leave the country. It isn't going to stop the war in Iraq because that horse is already out of the barn and this is just more arguing about if the barn door is open or not.

foodcourtdruide

11-20-2006, 06:09 AM

K.C. wrote: <a href="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?ncid=NWS00010000000001">http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?ncid=NWS00010000000001</a>Charlie Rangel has brought this up before. It looks like he's going to try again. His basic premise is that by reinstituting the draft, it will:a) end the Iraq warb) make the government think long and hard before it commits to a ground invasion ever again.  because he believes that the threat of the kids of your every day ham-n-egger getting drafted will make voters and government officials more conscious of the long term effects of their actions. Obviously, this has no chance of ever passing. But it's an interesting point he's making.  This message was edited by K.C. on 11-19-06 @ 9:34 PM The worst thing we can do to our military is institute a draft. It would be so expensive, and exhaust their resources. Rangel is just trying to get his name in the paper.. as usual.

Death Metal Moe

11-20-2006, 06:13 AM

Charlie Rangal is such a fucking asshole.  I might believe he had a great purpose to his proposal if it wasn't him.  This guy will do anything to get some publicity.He knows he'll never get this passed, he just wants to ruffle some feathers.  He's not doing this for some noble cause.

Yerdaddy

11-20-2006, 06:29 AM

It's a bit.

Jujubees2

11-20-2006, 06:37 AM

I'm so sick of everyone saying what a great country this is, blah, blah, blah.  But when it comes time to do something for your country everyone thinks it's someone else's responsibility.  I wholeheartedly disagree with what’s going on in Iraq.  But the problem with this so-called war is that no one has been asked to make any sacrifices, except for those in the service. Christ, we have a vice president who planned this freaking war who set the record on the number of deferments.  And we all know how hard GWB served in the National Guard during Vietnam (except for that year he never showed up.When I was in college, I had to register with the Selective Service at the post office or I wouldn’t have been able to receive any federal financial aid.  Does anyone know if that is still the case?

This message was edited by Jujubees2 on 11-20-06 @ 10:38 AM

foodcourtdruide

11-20-2006, 09:17 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: It's a bit. I guess I'm I don't get the bit guy.

furie

11-20-2006, 09:20 AM

seriously, why was this posted? Rangel does this EVERY YEAR!
this is the third "Draft to be brought back" Thread and Rangel is the star.

Death Metal Moe

11-20-2006, 09:26 AM

furie wrote: seriously, why was this posted? Rangel does this EVERY YEAR! this is the third "Draft to be brought back" Thread and Rangel is the star. That's a very good point I forgot to bring up in my post.  I knew I'd heard this line from him before.Get some new material Charlie.

badmonkey

11-20-2006, 10:06 AM

Yes you do still have to register for selective service when you turn 18. I see the commercials all the time.There are plenty of people from the suburbs that join the military without a draft. About half of my friends in high school joined the military straight out of high school. I was going into the marines with two friends on the buddy system my senior year until I broke my wrist in a basketball game and they wouldn't take me immediately. Doctors told me my wrist probably wouldn't ever heal properly so I went to college and straight into ROTC instead. Had to bail on ROTC when they found out about my wrist when I couldn't do flat handed pushups. My dad wasn't "rich", but we did live in the suburbs. I couldn't say for sure that him being in the military did or didn't influence me at all, but he never pushed me in either direction.I'd LOVE to see somebody post the economic stats on people joining the military. Since the Clinton base closings it has gotten a lot more competitive to even get into the military. They want the best and brightest and aren't taking just any slacker moron with a pulse. The last time Rangel's draft legislation was presented was right before the 2004 election and Democrats tried to pass it off as the Republican's sneaky plan to draft your children and send them to Iraq to fight their war for oil. "There's already draft legislation in congress right now!" The Republicans forced it to a vote to get rid of it and Rangel voted against it.  Badmonkey 

This message was edited by badmonkey on 11-20-06 @ 2:07 PM

SatCam

11-20-2006, 01:42 PM

While the legislation is an ok idea to get us out of the Iraq war, it would completely backfire if we had to enter into a legitimate war... if we were attacked. Then sure as fuck there would be a draft, an unneccessary one at that. It would be a complete waste of resources as usual.

I can "serve" my country without having to shoot guns at towel heads. Thinking that the military is the only way to serve your country is a load of bs. Forced service is not what I call freedom.

BYOBKenobi

11-20-2006, 02:36 PM

I almost wish they would so I would be drafted... I'm too much of a pussy to sign up.

Captain Rooster

11-20-2006, 02:41 PM

Sorry ... I know Rangel is a vet and an infantryman ... but he's so fulla crap ith this draft shit. They dig him up every few years to say, Bring back the draft!"  C'mon Charlie.

cougarjake13

11-20-2006, 03:18 PM

epo

11-20-2006, 03:19 PM

badmonkey wrote: I'd LOVE to see somebody post the economic stats on people joining the military. Since the Clinton base closings it has gotten a lot more competitive to even get into the military. They want the best and brightest and aren't taking just any slacker moron with a pulse. Badmonkey Really?  I could have sworn <a href="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl">here on military.com</a> they said they lowered the bar? And I also thought they raised the <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/236555.htm">signing bonus</a>?  That's right the history of world, in which the poor fight the wars for the rich continues.  Hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.  Charlie Rangel is a twit, but honestly the man has a point.

spoon

11-20-2006, 03:34 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: I'm so sick of everyone saying what a great country this is, blah, blah, blah.  But when it comes time to do something for your country everyone thinks it's someone else's responsibility.  I wholeheartedly disagree with what’s going on in Iraq.  But the problem with this so-called war is that no one has been asked to make any sacrifices, except for those in the service. Christ, we have a vice president who planned this freaking war who set the record on the number of deferments.  And we all know how hard GWB served in the National Guard during Vietnam (except for that year he never showed up.When I was in college, I had to register with the Selective Service at the post office or I wouldn’t have been able to receive any federal financial aid.  Does anyone know if that is still the case?This message was edited by Jujubees2 on 11-20-06 @ 10:38 AM Yes, this is still the case.

spoon

11-20-2006, 03:36 PM

furie wrote: seriously, why was this posted? Rangel does this EVERY YEAR! this is the third "Draft to be brought back" Thread and Rangel is the star. Well it might have something to do with the majority being a little different this year.  I know I know, it still won't pass.  But where did this guy go simply for pub all the time on any other issues.  He's got a good take on this and in the least it opens eyes to the actions of others and what real consequences would be.

joeyballsack

11-20-2006, 03:58 PM

At least he waited until after the elections this time to float the idea unlike 2000 when the idea was wrongly attributed to the Republicans. Like others have said, I think its a terrible idea. Speaking as someone who has spent time in the military, I wouldnt like the idea of having someone watching my back that doesnt want to be in the military.  Its being pitched as a way to keep us out of wars like Vietnam, but how did a draftee military work out for us in that conflict ? What you got was a military that was low on discipline and low on morale which does not make for the most effective fighting force.

Bulldogcakes

11-20-2006, 04:27 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: It's a bit. Absolutely. But even THE POINT he's trying to make is wrong. The military is 20% Black (Blacks are 12.8% in the general population), but the casualty rate among Blacks is less than 10% (CNN). So his whole point about the white guys staying home and minorities bearing the burden is simply false.

badmonkey

11-20-2006, 06:51 PM

epo wrote: badmonkey wrote: I'd LOVE to see somebody post the economic stats on people joining the military. Since the Clinton base closings it has gotten a lot more competitive to even get into the military. They want the best and brightest and aren't taking just any slacker moron with a pulse. Badmonkey Really? I could have sworn <a href="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl">here on military.com</a> they said they lowered the bar? And I also thought they raised the <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/236555.htm">signing bonus</a>? That's right the history of world, in which the poor fight the wars for the rich continues. Hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. Charlie Rangel is a twit, but honestly the man has a point. From the article on military.com: "Until Army recruiters began having trouble signing up enough recruits earlier this year, the Army had set minimum standards that were higher than those of the Defense Department. " "The Department of Defense "standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 [the higher end of testing] and 4 percent Category 4," the lowest end, Harvey said. "The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4." It now will use the Defense Department guidelines.""The Army's figures show 6.5 percent of all enlisted soldiers held GED certificates at the end of 2004, the last year statistics were available. The Army plans to keep its limit on new soldiers with GEDs at 10 percent in any year." So like I said, they made it more competitive after the Clinton base closings. The Army lowered their standards a little bit in 2005 to match the Department of Defense. They aso made it so a maximum of 10% of the army would be GED vs less than 7%. Not as competitive as 2004 but I'm having a hard time seeing that dropping to the DOD standards equals them now accepting any slacker moron with a pulse. Nothing at all wrong with increasing the enlistment bonus unless ya don't think these guys deserve more money for potentially signing up to sacrifice their lives. Badmonkey Edited to make article quotes italic 

This message was edited by badmonkey on 11-20-06 @ 10:52 PM

epo

11-20-2006, 07:31 PM

badmonkey wrote: epo wrote: badmonkey wrote: I'd LOVE to see somebody post the economic stats on people joining the military. Since the Clinton base closings it has gotten a lot more competitive to even get into the military. They want the best and brightest and aren't taking just any slacker moron with a pulse. Badmonkey Really? I could have sworn <a href="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl">here on military.com</a> they said they lowered the bar? And I also thought they raised the <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/236555.htm">signing bonus</a>? That's right the history of world, in which the poor fight the wars for the rich continues. Hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. Charlie Rangel is a twit, but honestly the man has a point. From the article on military.com: "Until Army recruiters began having trouble signing up enough recruits earlier this year, the Army had set minimum standards that were higher than those of the Defense Department. ""The Department of Defense "standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 [the higher end of testing] and 4 percent Category 4," the lowest end, Harvey said. "The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4." It now will use the Defense Department guidelines.""The Army's figures show 6.5 percent of all enlisted soldiers held GED certificates at the end of 2004, the last year statistics were available. The Army plans to keep its limit on new soldiers with GEDs at 10 percent in any year." So like I said, they made it more competitive after the Clinton base closings. The Army lowered their standards a little bit in 2005 to match the Department of Defense. They aso made it so a maximum of 10% of the army would be GED vs less than 7%. Not as competitive as 2004 but I'm having a hard time seeing that dropping to the DOD standards equals them now accepting any slacker moron with a pulse. Nothing at all wrong with increasing the enlistment bonus unless ya don't think these guys deserve more money for potentially signing up to sacrifice their lives. Badmonkey Edited to make article quotes italic This message was edited by badmonkey on 11-20-06 @ 10:52 PM So like I said, they lowered standards and raised bonuses to fill a body quota.  Also they began allowing more kids with a "<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL">checkered background</a>".  In fact the recruiter in the article claims:  "We're looking for high school graduates with no more than one felony on their record," one recruiter said.   Clearly not any "slacker morons" here.

spoon

11-20-2006, 08:12 PM

And let's be serious here and think about this from our own experiences.  Most of my friends who joined to this day are in no way making those higher standards.  That has to be off or at least a ploy.

CaptClown

11-20-2006, 10:05 PM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001121.html" target="_blank">The Democrats aren't even buying it.</a>  

This message was edited by CaptClown on 11-21-06 @ 2:06 AM

Yerdaddy

11-21-2006, 04:39 AM

CaptClown wrote: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001121.html" target="_blank">The Democrats aren't even buying it.</a>  This message was edited by CaptClown on 11-21-06 @ 2:06 AM Good. Now we can stop pissing and moaning about Rangel and whether he's grandstanding or not, (the serious discussion about the nature of the draft aside), and spend a little time talking about one of the two issues he was trying to highlight with this bullshit: what do we need to prevent the president - or future presidents - from launching <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact" target="_blank">another self-defeating war of choice</a>.

BLZBUBBA

12-02-2006, 04:37 PM

I've heard this idea kicked around before.  Kerry in the '04 elections talked about a 2yr "national service" of some sort.  Not only military but other service to the country as well.  I thought it was nonsense then.  I haven't changed my mind.I really think we need a draft...WHEN WE NEED A DRAFT.  We don't "need" a draft now.  We need to get out of Iraq.  Bush went in for the threat of WMD and a regime change.  Both have been accomplished.  One by default.  We need to get out now.  We should have declared victory and left after Saddam was captured.  This hanging on?  It's stupid.  Even the majority of Iraqis want us out.  In fact,  according to the poll I was looking at,  the majority of Iraqis like seeing our boys hit with IEDs.  We don't need a draft.  We need to keep the military as is and pick our fights more carefully.  Afghanistan was warranted.  Iraq?  No way.  No draft.  Not needed.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 03:04 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: It's a bit. Absolutely. But even THE POINT he's trying to make is wrong. The military is 20% Black (Blacks are 12.8% in the general population), but the casualty rate among Blacks is less than 10% (CNN). So his whole point about the white guys staying home and minorities bearing the burden is simply false.   I didn't think his point was about black/white. I thought he was talking about rich/poor or rich & middle class/poor.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 05:41 PM

UnknownPD wrote: Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since. This is just the thing that is a stereotype of the military and is simply not true.  Minorities in the ARMY (I am a veteran of the Army, so I will not speak to the other branches) make up more of the support roles and white men take up the majority of combat positions.  So instead sounding dumb and saying that it's disadvantaged kids fighting the wars of the rich, I could sound dumb and say it's "whitey" catching the bullets for all of us.Also with the benefits that the Army gives for tuition and cash bonuses, a poor kid with disadvantages would be foolish not to look into military service.  Here in New Jersey, if you serve in the National Guard, just being part-time (once a month, two weeks a year) gives you 100% tuition support to ANY college in New Jersey that is state accredited.  You get accepted to Princeton, or Rutgers or Rowan University?  Your parents unable to help with tuition?  Here you go.  Can't do better then that.  And all you have to do is show up and maintain a "C" average.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 05:45 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: When I was in college, I had to register with the Selective Service at the post office or I wouldn’t have been able to receive any federal financial aid.  Does anyone know if that is still the case?This message was edited by Jujubees2 on 11-20-06 @ 10:38 AM YES this is true today.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 05:52 PM

And while we're talking about draft or no draft, pulling out of Iraq-how about this?How about we pull out of Europe as well?  I have never understood the need for a military presence in Germany and Great Britain post Cold War.  I mean, we need to maintain a couple of airbases and staging areas in case of emergency, but its not necessary to maintain 2 full divisions over there anymore.

A.J.

12-09-2006, 09:27 AM

scottinnj wrote: And while we're talking about draft or no draft, pulling out of Iraq-how about this?How about we pull out of Europe as well?  I have never understood the need for a military presence in Germany and Great Britain post Cold War.  I mean, we need to maintain a couple of airbases and staging areas in case of emergency, but its not necessary to maintain 2 full divisions over there anymore. Absolutely.  EUCOM is no longer the premier AOR -- it's CENTCOM.  And CENTCOM is headquartered in Tampa for Christ's sake.The Europeans want to be independent and important, fine, let them.  They can start by doing something in Darfur.

sailor

12-09-2006, 10:09 AM

Campo wrote: johnniewalker wrote: UnknownPD wrote: Rangel deserves a lot of credit for this. There is nothing more unfair than forcing economically disadvantaged kids to fight the wars of the rich. It's time that everyone did their fare share for the country. More importantly imbedding a sense of history into our future leaders. It's easy to pull the trigger on a mission when you have no experience as to the individual himan cost. Rangel's plan also makes room for CO's and expects most people to do domestic service. I left the military fifteen years ago and have been a supporter of the draft ever since.  I hope I don't get yelled at for saying this, but I'm all for the draft. I wish more people had that sort of nationalism that comes from duty to your country. I'd really wish all kids would be in it also, no college exceptions. I think it would hit home with a lot more people and we wouldn't have this disconnected nature to the war that a lot of people have. I also think we would have very different perspectives on the war, the army, and our war. Our culture has very strange divisions and our volunteer army is another way that splits it up. I second UnknownPD This message was edited by johnniewalker on 11-19-06 @ 11:13 PM I agree with both statements 100%. Most countries force every male no materr what their economic background to join the military for 2 years. I think it will do exactly what Rangel says, the elite/rich will think twice before starting wars. a lot of countries have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription" target="_blank" title="conscription">conscription</a>, but a lot <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service" target="_blank" title="no conscription">don't</a>.

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 04:56 PM

A.J. wrote: scottinnj wrote: And while we're talking about draft or no draft, pulling out of Iraq-how about this?How about we pull out of Europe as well?  I have never understood the need for a military presence in Germany and Great Britain post Cold War.  I mean, we need to maintain a couple of airbases and staging areas in case of emergency, but its not necessary to maintain 2 full divisions over there anymore. Absolutely.  EUCOM is no longer the premier AOR -- it's CENTCOM.  And CENTCOM is headquartered in Tampa for Christ's sake.The Europeans want to be independent and important, fine, let them.  They can start by doing something in Darfur.I'm going to get in trouble one of these days if I keep telling Muslims that THEY need to do something in Darfur. And at least the Europeans are in Afghanistan, which is good if only to keep France away from Africa - they help Africa like Michael Jackson raises kids.<img src="http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/j/Jackson,_Michael/sq-michael-baby-balcony-cnn.jpg" border="0" width="180" height="180" />