Powerhouse Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) says he wants to bring back the military draft to counter widening threats and keep politicians from starting wars.”I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,” he said. “I think to do so is hypocritical.”
Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether he was serious about his proposal, Rangel replied bluntly, “You bet your life. Underscore ‘serious.’ “
Rangel said if there had been a draft in 2003, the U.S. never would have gone to war because politicians wouldn’t want to put their own sons and daughters in harm’s way.
“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq . . . if indeed we’d had a draft,” he said.
Yes, this doesn’t stand the chance of the proverbial snowball — for the reasons outlined by Rangel — a Korean War vet, btw. Last check, there were only 2 members of Congress who had kids serving in Iraq.
The streets of America would be filled with protesters if every family had to assume the risk of politicians sending their kids off to war.
I agree this will never get off the ground.
As soon as prima donna republicans see *THEIR* kids might be taken off the polo team for military duty, it will stop right there.
Even if there was a draft you can bet that their kids would be exempted. Just look at Dubya for an example. We would have all been better off if George the Elder had sent his boy to Vietnam.
Also, in 2004 he brought this to the house, it made it to the floor, lost 402-2 AND he was one of the 402 who voted against it.
Could the Bush girls handle living in a dry country?
For months lunatic-left have been trying to scare voters that the GOP had “secret plans” to bring back the draft. Now we have one of their own pushing hard for it. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I think I’m at the cut off age, so let them do it!
Just Kidding!
In some twisted way this makes sense to me. His statement of ”I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft” is so solid, it made me agree/understand with the proposal.
Now in my heart, I do not agree with having a draft. But i would guess that would fit with his statement because I don’t agree with this war. 🙂
2 Even if there was a draft you can bet that their kids would be exempted. Just look at Dubya for an example.
Agreed.
Think of Cheney, and Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, and to be “fair & balanced” Clinton…
Remember Clinton’s deferrals for college, and then his dropping the deferrals….
http://tinyurl.com/yaj9yx
When Clinton entered the draft in 1969, he was issued a high number by the Selective Service Board (311), significantly reducing the chances that he would ever be called to active duty.
we must give freedom to the Iraqis by stealing it from Americans!
Do you see the irony here?
Translation: “Black congressman calls for the reinstatement of slavery”
If I’d take this guy on a leash, and kill him if he refuses to point the gun at “the enemy,” how is his condition any different from that of a slave? People would object because they don’t want to get killed (and some just don’t want to be killers). This does not make it right to threaten them.
Let’s remember some of the worst atrocities ever were comitted with conscript troops. All other things equal, war is only made cheaper by readily available conscripts.
So while Bush may or may not be stopped by the threat of rebellion, if he doesn’t have the money, he may as well give up. All the will and propaganda in the world and it will be impossible to ship even one soldier overseas.
Follow the money. Cut the evil at the root. The war will be over tomorrow.
ZeOverMind,
Actually you are wrong. The point of this legislation is to make people think about George Bush’s plan to increase troops in Iraq. The reality is, we are only increasing troops by 20,000 units. To militarily win in Iraq we need 500-700 thousand troops there.
Rangel is saying with his legislation, “Mr President, dear American people, the time for half measures is over.” The American people now have to decide if they are for the war or against it. It really is simple. The American people have been mealy mouthed about this war for far too long. At least the anti-war hippies like Cindy Sheehan have takin a fucking stand on this war. While conservative pro war gun nuts have said, “Yay war! But dont draft us or our kids!!”
If you want to win in Iraq, we need to have a draft, and you need to increase the troop strength in the military by, probably a million soldiers, to have the troops to finish what George Bush started in Iraq.
Otherwise, pull the troops out, accept total military and political defeat in Iraq. Bring the guilty parties up on war crimes charges.
Just pick a god damn side already, its been 4 years….
If we should have a draft; then no damned exceptions. Even in peace time, a draft would serve the purpose of getting the kids out from Mamma’s apron strings and give them a taste of a larger world. The concept of several years service to ones own country is not a flawed concept. And the service need not be military, we could institute a medical service, and perhaps even a construction (for infrastructure maintenance) service. Most of the kids coming out of high school have no idea what they want to do, a couple years in service would give them a breather, some training, and perhaps even propel them along a more suitable career path than what they had at first envisioned.
Call 1-800 Go Army and reserve your free body bag today.
GregA: Yeah, I think your right. The only way to win a war is the old fashioned way. Overwhelming force and subjugation of the losing country. Having said that, I think we should leave, and bring up the guilty parties first impeachment, then prosecution. I dont want to see more kids die for Iraqs temporary democracy.
Oh, common. It’s called reverse psychology. Armchair critics and religious crusaders will sit up and take notice. It’s called “put your children where your mouth is, or shut up hypocrite.”
#9 Donald Rumsfeld was a Navy fighter pilot from 1954-1957 and retired from the US Navy Reserve in 1989 with the rank of Captain.
George W. Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam twice, but was passed over for pilots with more experience.
If a larger military is needed, we don’t need a draft, Ronald Reagan increased the size of the military greatly in the 1980’s with out one, and George H. W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf War and Bill Clinton gutted it in the 1990’s.
I am against the draft because it will make the military LESS effective. The military’s job is difficult and you can’t effectively get people to do it if they really don’t want to be there. There are a few situations where a draft is necessary; this isn’t one of them. (Pentagon doesn’t want a draft either.)
#3 – I’d agree that this is nothing more than grandstanding. However, do you have a link showing us he voted against his own idea?
So if there are 435 representatives in the House of Representatives, and two of their adult offspring are serving, is this representative of 1 in 217 Americans with their progeny in Iraq? Or is it more?
RBG
Sundog,
The telling revealing thing going on is… Where ever we send troops, peace breaks out. The other half of that is, we dont have enough troops there to keep a sizable force everywhere.
This notion that we will train the Iraqis to keep themselves Conquered is insane. It didn’t work in Vietnam, it hasn’t worked in Iraq. Germany stayed conquered because there were two massive armies standing head to head there for 40 years. Japan stayed conquered because we nuked them and utterly broke their will under the heat of a 5 million degree fire ball.
Also, this is not Vietnam in that regard. There doesnt seem to be a Soviet Union and Communist china feeding the insurgency. Sure I suspect Iran is sending some aid, but its not significant, compared to say, Vietnam.
Also, Iran would quickly change course on nuclear weapons, if they saw some backbone from the American public on the war in Iraq. They are acting the way they are because we appear weak, not strong. They know they can survive a bombing campaign. They also know we can’t mount an invasion.
Having said that, I have been against this war since before it started. 9/11 happened because of a generation of a stupid and belicose foreign policy in the mid-east because we were too lazy and greedy and wanted their oil. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the money, or even know who we are for that matter. They would be a bunch of camel jockeys riding their camels around the desert.
This war is a direct result of Ronald Reagon tearing those PV cells off of the white house.
(*!@&#$)(!@*#&)$&_!#%+@)#(!@)(#!(@&#**&^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17. RON
“George W. Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam twice, but was passed over for pilots with more experience.”
Ok, I think you made that up. I want to see you back that one up. If you can, then I will apologize.
” If a larger military is needed, we don’t need a draft, Ronald Reagan increased the size of the military greatly in the 1980’s with out one, and George H. W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf War and Bill Clinton gutted it in the 1990’s. ‘
OK, we went to war in Afghanistan with Clintons army after 9-11 and did quite well. We did what the Russians failed to do in short order. Dont try to tell me Bush had enough time (or brains) to turn the Army around in that short a period.
Sundog you’re understanding of the war in Afghanistan is amazing. Your point of, “overwhelming force and subjugation of the losing country” did not work in Afgahnistan when the Soviets tried it, and less than twenty years later we are still paying the price for this policy.
First off, the Soviets failed in Russia not because of their military, but because of the proxy war fought by the U.S. If we had choose not to sell stinger missiles to the jihadists the Soviets would have conquered the country, and subdued the foreign fighters. Secondly, while it is true that “Clinton’s army” was utilized after 9/11 the majority of the fighting was not done by American forces, but instead by Pashtun and N.A. members. Our success in Afghanistan has been in part due to the fact that we enabled several warring tribes to form a unity government, and thankfully ideologues such as yourself, were not present in the post-war planning phase. This can be seen by America not using overwhelming force and subjugation, instead relying on consensus building.
This is absurd logic. Did the draft keep us out of Korea? No. Did the draft keep us out of Vietnam? No.
Get a clue: If you have the power to commit troops, you certainly have the power to keep your son out of harm’s way.
As soon as prima donna republicans see *THEIR* kids might be taken off the polo team for military duty, it will stop right there.
Hey clueless, last time I checked the Dems in congress are just as rich and privileged as the Republicans. I see you buy into the Dems are just like me stereotype that many would have you believe. Being a politician, especially the Senate, is a rich man/woman’s profession. Most are lawyers, corporate leaders or come from old money. The idea that Democrat politicians are poor working class slobs is ludicrous.
>500-700 thousand troops
Where’d you get that number from? This is 3 times asd much as ‘fired’ Gen Shinseki suggested.
The strange thing is that almost all of the facts behind Rangel’s draft proposal are false. Combat troops are more likely to be white, and recruits tend to be smarter and more middle class than the general public.
#27,
Shinseki’s numbers were to create a “reasonable level of conflict”. The 500-700k number comes from prewar estimates for “occupation with security.”
No one likes to talk about the 500-700k number though because… you get fired if you talk about that. A bit of a tautology, I know. Also because the only way to get that many troops is a draft, as international support is diminishing rather than forthcoming.
Perhaps if you looked at the facts rather than Fox news, you would get a clearer picture of what is happening in Iraq?
Lemmee see…yeah, I remember when I wuz a kidney, we talked about how it was pretty assinine to get all gung-ho about joining up to go to Vietnam when even politicos on the State level were scrambling to get their kids deferred from the draft. I got lucky, like Clinton I suppose, I got a really high number, I think it was 335 and I’m kinda blind in one eye from birth so, I probably wouldn’t have been able to dodge bullets like some friends of mine tried so unsuccessfully.
I’m thinking GregA might have a pretty close-to-the-truth handle on the how and why behind Iraq and Afghanistan, although the fact that we supplied the Afghani’s with weapons musta had some effect when we went over to get Al Queda ? It just looks more and more like it’s always been about oil and who gets control over it. Dubya is in office less than a month, the first go ’round, and he guts 90% of the Alternative Energy Research funding . Clinton closed a ton of military bases and released a ton of military personnel and the country went into the black, albeit briefly. I mention this only to point out the differring philosophies..they were both trying to save money. So, if I think about this (even though it hurts, I’m trying hard) I guess for me, it’s ok to have a small military because you won’t need one if you don’t have to fight the rest of the world for their oil. Ah well, an over simplification but, I’m really pretty simple about most things.
I think I’ve posted here saying that I was in favor of a draft, and that I register if one started. Otherwise, I agree, this is a shallow bit of posturing that demeans it’s own position.
(Somebody asked for a link showing Rangel voting against his own bill — Murtha voted ‘yea’? Wonder why.)
Better topic of debate: is this really effective liberal baiting as a post, though. 😀