Rangel once again proposes a new draft bill (hell no we won't go?)

This bit of news has popped up recently, causing some controversy within the government and the nation.

Quote:

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 19, 5:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

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.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. 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.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 — now about 16 million — from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

What say you? Are our politicians willing to go through with this? Is Rangel merely waving it around to make a point? Do we need a draft? Would you accept the draft?

Let's be intellectual now, guys, this is no epithet zone.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

T minus 24 hours and counting....

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

No wonder the liberals had this much trouble against the GOP. They really are that stupid.

Detering wars by giving yourself a larger and guaranteed number of troops sure seems like it'll work.

I'm just going to resign to the fact that each and every American politician is a dipshit retard. There is no way around it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Colonel Skills

I'm just going to resign to the fact that each and every American politician is a dipshit retard. There is no way around it.

Come in, Houston. We're going to move up that launch time just a smidge. T minus 5 minutes and counting.

Note: The opinions expressed by Mr. Skills do not represent those of all Canadians, and it should be noticed if you want to get all pissy and invade our country over it, he lives in Winnipeg. WINNIPEG. You'll have to look on a map. I strongly suggest you find a non-Bush employee to do it, so as to avoid invading Australia.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I EDITTED THE STRIKE TAGS OUT.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Like it matters. You meant what you said, which is why you typed it in the first place, jackass.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well, its an interesting way to get the younger people politically involved, that for sure, although it is pretty clear that neither parties are welling to back him on this. There simply isn’t the type of political stomach right now, besides, from what I heard (an interview on the news) US military isn’t exactly ready to handle an influx of new troops in large number at the moment. Wasn’t there something about a “smaller more efficient army” that Rumsfeld was throwing around a couple of years back?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Magi

Well, its an interesting way to get the younger people politically involved, that for sure, although it is pretty clear that neither parties are welling to back him on this. There simply isn’t the type of political stomach right now, besides, from what I heard (an interview on the news) US military isn’t exactly ready to handle an influx of new troops in large number at the moment. Wasn’t there something about a “smaller more efficient army” that Rumsfeld was throwing around a couple of years back?

Ya, they fired that guy because his plan didn't work for shit, Magi. I'm sure you heard about it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Like it matters. You meant what you said, which is why you typed it in the first place, jackass.

I editted it out because this is the PP and half hearted jokes and sarcasm go over about as well here as you would at a Dem pep rally.

Besides, Deni already said in chat he quoted it just to start shit again. Because he's a fucker.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Colonel Skills

I editted it out because this is the PP and half hearted jokes and sarcasm go over about as well here as you would at a Dem pep rally.

Besides, Deni already said he quoted it just to drag this through the shit again. Because he's a fucker.

No, no... NP would go over great at a dem pep rally. But put him in the republican camp, and we's-a-gonna-sees-us-a-lynchin'.

Republicans != negroes. Especially angry ones. See entry on Katrina.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

On the contrary, given that I'm young, black, college-educated, and lean conservative on most issues, I tend to get carte-blanche at Republican functions.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

On the contrary, given that I'm young, black, college-educated, and lean conservative on most issues, I tend to get carte-blanche at Republican functions.

carte-blanche. Interesting choice of words.

Also, you're not so much with the jokes, are you NP?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yeah, all 3 of those personal traits are extremely rare in that group. I'd imagine you'd practically get your dick sucked just walking into such a convention.

Leave the Oreo alone, Deni. He's got no sense of humour.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I doubt this would ever get seriously considered, and it does make you wonder how people like him get voted into office in the first place.

My argument is that any talks of a draft would prove to be very unpopular, not just with politicians, but with the people as well. The only exception would probably be if another World War broke out, and Americans, or worse, American service members get killed (which is probably the only real reason why there are still US troops in South Korea, so that if North Korea attacks, it'll be another "Pearl Harbor". And I highly doubt many Americans would be against flattening out North Korea when they start seeing images of dead Americans from NK agression).

Chances are also good that rich, affluent members of society are still going to somehow manage to get their kids from getting drafted. When you have a lot of influence and/or money, you can get a lot of things done, ethical or not (judging from all those scandals). Failling that, they'll probably pull strings to ensure their kids get comfy, non-combat positions in the military (such as managing an office in a stateside base), so that the bulk of the fighting will still be largely middle and lower class people. And you can bet the media in this day and age will paint just about any conflict as a "Rich man's war, but poor man's fight", which will further tick off lower class Americans (wasn't that one of the complaints about the draft for Vietnam? And the American Civil War too if I recall).

And on top of that, any politicians who support a draft will likely not get re-elected come next election (particularly if the conflict requiring a draft goes sour quickly, because their opponents will rail against them using "OMG that guy supported this draft! Vote for the new guy, he doesn't support it and he'll bring our boys home!"), so it's not likely that any sane politicians would risk their political neck to support this.

Guess they'd better hurry up and finish that border fence, cause soon it'll keep Americans from running to Mexico to avoid the draft this time lol (forget about Canada, cause they have an agreement to send those guys back now. But Mexico, I'm sure they'd welcome rich Americans coming into their country and taking their money to ensure that the US won't find them).

Again, a conflict short of something on the scale of World War 2 is probably not going to interest Americans enough to support a draft (heck, I'm starting to think that if Japan had simply taken the islands they wanted, without launching the Pearl Harbor attack first, most Americans probably wouldn't of cared about a conflict taking place thousands of miles away from their home). If anything they'd tell the current govt. officials to pull out of Iraq sooner if things are going bad (and those extremists killing people aren't making it go any faster. If they're going to attack, they should wait till after the coalition troops pull out, not while they're still there. Or better yet, develop a new, cheap, and efficient fuel that could replace oil, and then maintain a monopoly on that).

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Also, you're not so much with the jokes, are you NP?

Excuse me if I don't find people insulting me and my countrymen funny.

Quote:

Leave the Oreo alone, Deni. He's got no sense of humour.

Listen up, fuck boy, my sense of humor is fine. But I don't take kindly to you insulting my country or my blackness.

Just keep in mind that it's something you wouldn't say to my face 'cause I'd beat the brakes off you.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

Let's be intellectual now, guys, this is no epithet zone.

Sage advice.

Now everybody start following it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Our own commanders have said we won't make any progress without 100,000 more troops. We're not going to get them through volunteering. You have to support either pulling out or a draft. Period. This bill just forces people to take a side.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Or no side, as is more politically expedient.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Our own commanders have said we won't make any progress without 100,000 more troops. We're not going to get them through volunteering. You have to support either pulling out or a draft. Period. This bill just forces people to take a side.

They could concievably be obtained by taking men from the large majority of the Army that made up of is non-combat elements and turning them into combat infantry.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Perhaps, but it's not like the non-combat troops just sit on their butts all day. The Armed Forces need people to do more than just fire guns. For day-to-day operations, the non-combat people are much more important than the combat ones, actually.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Perhaps, but it's not like the non-combat troops just sit on their butts all day. The Armed Forces need people to do more than just fire guns. For day-to-day operations, the non-combat people are much more important than the combat ones, actually.

That may be true to a certain degree, but those 100,000 troops the commanders need that you mentioned aren't likely to be 100,000 more supply clerks.

Losing 2-3,000 troops in Iraq shouldn't be enough to seriously hurt the U.S. Army, which between the regular army, reserves and National Guard numbers over a million. But it has. The reason for this is the fact that those relatively few casualties predominantly fall on combat personnel, particularly combat infantry, which make up less than a third of the army. Therefore, those losses do more damage to the Army's ability to wage war than the numbers alone would suggest.

The army can concievably continue to operate with a larger percentage of its personnel transfered to the combat arms.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't think we're gonna have a draft any time soon. That doesn't mean I don't think it could happen. Anything is possible. Maybe if we attack Iran, and/or Iraq isn't sorted out in this decade. Though now that Rummy is gone a draft is all the more likely of happening. He was perhaps the biggest opponent to the reinstatement of the military draft given his position.

We're not just going to leave Iraq suddenly now that the Democrats are in power. I seriously doubt this will be the case. For a lot of reasons, namely that the Democrats still support the continuation of the War. Why shouldn't they? They supported the start of it. An exit strategy does not mean we're going to pull our troops from Iraq completely. If history is any indication about what might happen, we're just going to pull our troops back and bomb the living daylights out of the Iraqi insurgency. In support of the Iraqi government forces doing most of the ground fighting -- of course. There's no need for a draft at this point.... Unless I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Losing 2-3,000 troops in Iraq shouldn't be enough to seriously hurt the U.S. Army, which between the regular army, reserves and National Guard numbers over a million. But it has. The reason for this is the fact that those relatively few casualties predominantly fall on combat personnel, particularly combat infantry,

I don't buy that. We might have just under 3,000 combat troop deaths in Iraq, but we never hear about the wounded numbers. With modern battlefield medicine advancements, I wouldn't be surprised if the wounded numbered as high as 20,000 or more.

Plus, getting a leg blown off by an IED is bound to constrain a soldier's capacity to wage war. I'll go so far as to say it hurts unit morale and discipline and cite an incident like Haditha as proof. Requiring rest and recreation for morale/discipline to be rebuilt.

Even though we only have roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq; that's a lot of troops to rotate in and out, year after year. Not to mention if the military brass wants to send more. The longer we stay in Iraq the more likely a military draft will happen.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Watts, you're right. The number I used was just the dead, and doesn't include the vastly higher numbers of wounded.

However, that still serves to boost to my argument, as those wounded also come predominantly from the combat arms, which further degrades their units' fighting ability. And given that combat arms are such a minority of the Army's total numbers, to maintain troop levels we have to keep rotating combat formations back into Iraq, which does nothing good for fatigue or morale.

But still, it comes back to the relatively small number of actual combat troops among our army. Given their size, and that the vast majority of casualties will fall on them, each one represents a larger hit to the Army's fighting strength.

FELIPE NO

Seeing as the Pentagon is having trouble meeting their recruitment targets these days, the only reliable way of keeping fresh stocks of army people availible is through some form of a draft. Sure, converting the non-combat elements into fighting units would help in the short-term; but it doesn't solve the underlying problem of sagging recruitment. How about implimenting a draft to fill the lost non-combat posts that would open up with the kind of structual shakeup Mr. Styphon is suggesting?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You know, you have to admit: there is a strange sense of democracy in the idea that every single citizen has to serve. Besides the, you know, obvious destruction of civil liberty.

I've heard far worse arguments for the draft.

Jam it back in, in the dark.