View Full Version : Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft
BMT (RIP)
11-19-2006, 16:13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html
BMT
bring back the 60s, fun days for the Libs, burning draft cards, college protests, sit ins, border jumping to Canada.
Building a bigger force starts with funding from Congress. The rest just takes time.
Well Charlie? Wheres the money?
What is he think, well look at what America wants. Not the Draft.
He didn't get the point 2 years ago, so he think that now that DEMs are in "power" he can change the People.
Charlie Brown could never get the pumkin.
NousDefionsDoc
11-19-2006, 18:27
Good, I hope they do it. Then I can quit worrying about Shrillary in '08.
AngelsSix
11-19-2006, 19:30
Then I can quit worrying about Shrillary in '08.
Amen!!
incommin
11-20-2006, 06:16
I don't think you have to worry about Shrillary in '08. She is not "left enough" for the party. She will have to draw a major part of independents and I don't think she can do that.....
Jim
BMT (RIP)
11-20-2006, 06:19
Nancy P in the Romper Room might sink the bitch !! :lifter
:munchin
BMT
I don't think you have to worry about Shrillary in '08. She is not "left enough" for the party.
Don't be fooled by the "new" Hillary. She's as left as any of them. She's just wearing her "middle of the road" outfit hoping she'll get elected. Remember, she's the one who didn't want any military uniforms in the White House. Sounds like she's from SF.
GreenSalsa
11-20-2006, 08:25
The only reason he wants a draft is to force “unwilling” service members on the military. I truly believe they are both baffled and scared why (except for a select super minority) the US Military has supported wholeheartedly these recent operations. They can not comprehend why retention rates are at an all time high and even with the increased OPTEMPO soldiers continue to deploy two, three and four times into combat theaters.
Rangle feels that if he could “dilute” the military, and he could frighten the larger civilian population with the threat of a draft, he could reign in and restrict probably the most professional military this country has ever fielded. They fully expected the country to start a 60s style “revolution” against the war, but in all reality this war does NOT effect the average citizen, only the servicemen and their families. He feels that the only way to make the general US population “feel the pain” is to scare them with the threat of a draft.
I truly believe these people (like Rangel) are scared of us, and will do anything they can to cripple us and our ability to wage war on our enemies. Fortunately he probably has no traction and stands nearly no chance at passage.
:mad:
BMT (RIP)
11-20-2006, 08:31
Remember the movie "Seven Days in May"??
Maybe Charlie watched a rerun or DVD version. Maybe he is scared of lossing his job!!
BMT
The Reaper
11-20-2006, 10:41
Don't be fooled by the "new" Hillary. She's as left as any of them. She's just wearing her "middle of the road" outfit hoping she'll get elected. Remember, she's the one who didn't want any military uniforms in the White House. Sounds like she's from SF.
She is in no way "from SF".
I know what you meant, but please do not use that abbreviation in that way here again.
Thanks.
TR
x SF med
11-20-2006, 11:38
She is in no way "from SF".
I know what you meant, but please do not use that abbreviation in that way here again.
Thanks.
TR
I second the motion presented by the COL.
soldierdoc_2005
11-20-2006, 12:46
What is he think, well look at what America wants. Not the Draft.
He didn't get the point 2 years ago, so he think that now that DEMs are in "power" he can change the People.
Charlie Brown could never get the pumkin.
The idea of conscription would go over with the Congress about as well as a fart in church.
soldierdoc_2005
11-20-2006, 12:47
Well Charlie? Wheres the money?
Tax increases...errr....restructuring
but in all reality this war does NOT effect the average citizen, only the servicemen and their families.
Isn't this a bad thing?
Should I not be disturbed that 1% of the population (armed forces and kin) is shouldering the entire cost of our nations efforts? While the other 99% (civies, myself included) literally isn't even paying the tab (deficits). I think a draft would be a bad idea, but I cant help but think the public leans towards apathy while men and women in our Armed Forces are making the ultimate sacrifice.
I do not intend to throw bombs here, but wish to get the perspective of current and former members of the Armed Forces, for this issue has been tearing at me for sometime.
Am I wrong here?
x SF med
11-20-2006, 13:23
Should a draft be reinstated, it would have to have no deferments, release only for medical/psych issues, and a loosening of the medical requirements to free able bodied young men and women for front line and near front line CSS duty, while filling the stateside support and removed from action support duties to soldiers who would otherwise be bopping on the block. Hold initial enlistments to 2 years, make promotions in those first 2 years to the most qualified draftees (enlistees might be exempted from draftee restrictions). Your better soldiers might just decide it is the life for them, and become professional NCOs. There might be a designation for enlistees versus draftees in rank, and a further designation for professional soldiers. Officers will have had to either enlisted or been drafted prior to OCS/ROTC/MIL Academy.
Draconian, but fair - level the playing field, start everybody at the same place.
BMT (RIP)
11-20-2006, 14:02
Nancy Pelosi: Restoring Military Draft Not on Agenda
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/20/121124.shtml?s=ic
BMT
Basic training would have to totally change in order for it to work! It is pretty tough much of the time to train recruits who do stand up and volunteer under the current system. If the recruits were drafted and had absolutely no commitment of their own to begin with, under the current rules I don't think you could do it. Drill Sergeants should never be put in a position where they're given mission impossible with no effective tools to do the job. I'm not saying that you should start allowing Drill Sergeants to hit anybody, but it would have to give them more freedom to discipline troops than they have at present. After that problem is solved they get to their first duty station where their first line supervisors have to provide them "purpose, direction, and motivation" whether they want it or not? This barely works with the modern soldiers who volunteered! I don't think it has a prayer of being effective with a draftee. How is that supposed to work? For the life of me I can't figure out how our fathers and grandfathers did it without wall to wall counseling! Then finally, would you as a volunteer want to go to war with a guy who was drafted and barely manageable as it is? I sure as Hell wouldn't! This seems to me like punishment for the services for being as good as we are in spite of all the :mad: things that have been imposed on them by liberals before. ie - integrated basic training.
I am not for the draft but lets keep on track with something.
Americans being Americans, the vast majority of people drafted would be OK. They would serve their time and get out. Some would find they like military life and reenlist.
The problem would be with the small % that flat out do not want to be there. They are the ones who would make all the noise, get al the press and cause all the problems.
This is all chatter until congress funds more slots in the military.
The large VOLAR, Cold War Army of the late 70s and early/mid 80s kept the ranks full with volunteers. All the war plans of the time called for the Red Army to charge through the Fulda Gap and not stop until they hit the coast.
The Book, I think, Red Storm Rising was overtaken by events but it was in eerybody's mind as to what could happen at the time. We still had people volunteer to sit in tanks as speed bumps to the Soviet Forces.
incommin
11-20-2006, 15:20
"I'm not saying that you should start allowing Drill Sergeants to hit anybody, but it would have to give them more freedom to discipline troops than they have at present."
Drill Sergeants still have some tools if they want to use them.....re-enforment training, remedial training, motivational training.....don't even have to say punishment!
It is like thinking about how many ways can you booby trap something..... a Drill Sergeant is only limited by his own motivation and thinking.......
Jim
He didn't get the point 2 years ago, so he think that now that DEMs are in "power" he can change the People.
He reminds me of Kerry, brought up the draft proposal...then even he himself voted against it. :rolleyes: He's a "stirrer"...
GreenSalsa
11-21-2006, 05:31
but in all reality this war does NOT effect the average citizen, only the servicemen and their families.
Isn't this a bad thing?
Should I not be disturbed that 1% of the population (armed forces and kin) is shouldering the entire cost of our nations efforts? While the other 99% (civies, myself included) literally isn't even paying the tab (deficits). I think a draft would be a bad idea, but I cant help but think the public leans towards apathy while men and women in our Armed Forces are making the ultimate sacrifice.
I do not intend to throw bombs here, but wish to get the perspective of current and former members of the Armed Forces, for this issue has been tearing at me for sometime.
Am I wrong here?
I really don't WANT my family (or any other American) to be affected by the war, that’s why we are fighting it. I would hope they appreciate our efforts but I don't need their accolades…I just want them to stay out of the way (when guidance is given) so we can do our job.
While I have the utmost respect for draftees who have kept this country free from wars since its inception…do you think there would have been a draft if there was enough volunteers? Drafting is for emergencies only—such as the survival of the nation. Drafting simply to make us more reluctant to fight and win our nations wars is stupid and shortsighted.
:mad:
That said I don’t have a problem with National Service, 2-3 years working in a National Park, Peace Corps (for the left leaning folks), fire stations, or working in schools. I think you could come up with reasonable service plan (military included) that could help instill some patriotism and service to this nation.
Post
GS-
Thanks for your insight here and your efforts for our nation.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-21-2006, 12:37
Isn't this a bad thing?
Should I not be disturbed that 1% of the population (armed forces and kin) is shouldering the entire cost of our nations efforts? While the other 99% (civies, myself included) literally isn't even paying the tab (deficits). I think a draft would be a bad idea, but I cant help but think the public leans towards apathy while men and women in our Armed Forces are making the ultimate sacrifice.
I do not intend to throw bombs here, but wish to get the perspective of current and former members of the Armed Forces, for this issue has been tearing at me for sometime.
Am I wrong here?
I think the thing that you should more disturbed about is the lack of knowledge that folks in this country have about the world around them. For the most part the commitment of the military for war should be limited only in defense of our vital national interests and then only when the other elements of national power have failed to rectify the threat. The other elements of national power are directly controlled by these same citizens and it is their participation or lack there of that determines the courses that this country may or will have to take. Political power is a direct function of the voting public. When you don't vote your voice is not heard. If you vote and are not informed about the issues your voice is heard but becomes white noise. When politicians fail, because of their own ineptitude or because the wrong person is in office, then the diplomatic, economic and psychological elements of nation power become more or less ineffective in supporting this country's national interests. The only element of national power left to shore up the mess becomes military power, and even that is a stop gap measure until the other players in this equation can get their act together. So for those other 99% you feel have not been called upon to help shoulder the load, they are involved either by their indifference or ignorance supported by a liberal media that has chosen to "educate the masses" to support their flawed view of the world. Just an observation .
incommin
11-21-2006, 13:26
Not only a lack of knowledge about the "world" around them but of the workings of their own government.
Good post Jack Moroney!
Jim
x SF med
11-21-2006, 14:19
I do believe this goes back to the very famous John Stuart Mill quote from "On Liberty", that begins "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things..." and ends with "... unless made and kept so, by better men than themselves."
We have achieved the stasis that the general populace is so used to being protected by a professional military that they have forgotten the sacrifice of those brave enough to serve. they see the cost to the government (and their wallets), see those who die (forgetting that the brave have chosen an occupation that this is a very real possibility), and they are abhorred. The general populace does not worry that the families of these (junior) soldiers even in peacetime, are at or below the poverty line, work multiple jobs, and do so freely, of their own volition - to keep those who disagree with their profession free. these same people that protest the violence of war buy their children the most violent video games on the market, buy them out of trouble, and wonder why ther is no more discipline....
A draft might help them keep their priorities straight.
"While I have the utmost respect for draftees who have kept this country free from wars since its inception…do you think there would have been a draft if there was enough volunteers? Drafting is for emergencies only—such as the survival of the nation. Drafting simply to make us more reluctant to fight and win our nations wars is stupid and shortsighted."
Amen Brother!
This whole thing is so transparently stupid that it proved Jack Moroney's point beyond a shadow of a doubt! I think Charlie knows that a fair portion of Americans are dumb enough to believe this whole thing is just the answer we're looking for. It will never happen, but the political debate should be fun to watch.
incommin
11-21-2006, 15:36
I see a draft only if we get into WWIII or start the next crusade and invade the Middle East in-mass. The professional soldier has always been neglected and looked down upon by the upper class. Most in our society believe that one joins the military as a last resort. That only the dumb and lazy find a home in the Army. If anyone in government and society really thought highly of the military, wages would be higher for privates and sergeants. The soldier is really only appreciated when society gets scared. But then that is the way it has been since Roman times.
Jim