PDA

View Full Version : Reinstating the Draft?


stag1500
11-20-2006, 10:30 AM
Have you guys heard that Charles Rangel(D) wants to reinstate the draft?

JesseXXX
11-20-2006, 10:35 AM
I saw that on CNN.... this is gonna get interesting.... :)

FatKatMatt
11-20-2006, 10:39 AM
I heard that, his logic behind it is interesting. Reinstate the draft so there will be no more "non-defensive" wars, or so I hear. He hopes it will make the Congressmen with kids wary of voting for any aggressive action. I wonder what will come of this.

eckerph
11-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Apparently he has tried this twice before in some fashion and both times it bombed, So my guess is third times the charm.

VeryCoolCat
11-20-2006, 10:50 AM
The problem with drafts is that some kids would rather go to college, joining the military can put a hamper on this.

Not to mention rich buisness men's or politicians children dodging or joining the national guard to avoid the draft.

anotherone
11-20-2006, 11:00 AM
Rangel is just another wierd liberal in the house trying to pass fringe bills. This thing has been thrown out twice before and it won't be any different this time. Bills that have the support of the American people get passed and earn politicians approval points. Bills that don't have the support of the American people get you kicked out of office. In a recent poll less than 30% of Americans said they supported reinstating the draft. Do the math.

bwiese
11-20-2006, 11:03 AM
It's just a face-time thing for Rangel, a known east coast pinko lib.

The military command structure itself does not want a draft: we have a far higher quality military when the people that are there *want* to be there.

chris
11-20-2006, 11:04 AM
no one wants to reinstate the draft because most Americans today take their freedoms for granted. heaven forbid someone is forced to serve their country and the freedoms it stands for.

but as for the draft being reinstated i say a snowball has a better chance in hell than the draft coming back.

chiefcrash
11-20-2006, 11:14 AM
i doubt the draft could ever work again. it's just too easy to get out of: all you have to do is say you're gay

chiefcrash
11-20-2006, 11:15 AM
The problem with drafts is that some kids would rather go to college, joining the military can put a hamper on this.


as for this: i always wondered why they wouldn't let you finish college then draft you as an officer...

bwiese
11-20-2006, 11:19 AM
as for this: i always wondered why they wouldn't let you finish college then draft you as an officer...

Um, with what a lot of colleges accept in and put out as graduates, they may be better off getting an officer corps from the non-college folks :)

NeoWeird
11-20-2006, 11:19 AM
I wouldn't put the draft completely off the US plate, but I doubt it will happen just because. If we were invaded and/or attacked and we were against a far superior enemy than normal where the threat of losing was real, then it might happen. As long as our troops are kicking *** on their own then no one is going to want to instate the draft.

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 11:19 AM
Is this the news your talking about ?

Or are you quoting something more recent ?


Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Kestryll
11-20-2006, 11:22 AM
Charlie's at it again Sam, even his own party is not happy with him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16057225.htm

mblat
11-20-2006, 11:25 AM
as for this: i always wondered why they wouldn't let you finish college then draft you as an officer...


It seems that drafting someone who graduated in "women studies" or "french literature of 17th century" would be waste of time.......

It is all non-sense. While I don't oppose draft as a general idea - I have no problem with young man going to military to learn how to use weapons. I also have no problem if some of those people say don’t want to go to military. They can go to mental hospitals or cleaning streets or building roads…. I find argument that Rangell using is totally ridiculous.
It won’t pass anyway. Majority of American people seems to have an aversion to idea of defending this country…..

Charliegone
11-20-2006, 11:56 AM
I wouldn't put the draft completely off the US plate, but I doubt it will happen just because. If we were invaded and/or attacked and we were against a far superior enemy than normal where the threat of losing was real, then it might happen. As long as our troops are kicking *** on their own then no one is going to want to instate the draft.

I see it this way..if we truly were in danger like some politicos say we are, than we wouldn't need a draft because people would be going to the military to defend this country on their own accord. We would have more than enough. Look what happened after 9-11. Screw Rangel.

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 12:01 PM
I have a great idea for rangel let the illegal aliens be drafted as a condition of not being deported. and then they can build the wall that will keep the ones that are deported from coming back in to the country again.

mblat
11-20-2006, 12:16 PM
I have a great idea for rangel let the illegal aliens be drafted as a condition of not being deported. and then they can build the wall that will keep the ones that are deported from coming back in to the country again.


Thay can do it already. Going into military has been path to citienzenship for years...... Or at least that is what I heard..... May be wrong...

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 12:30 PM
My point is its not an option of if the aliens want to join up or not if they don't then they are out on their ear.

I have the thought of a bouncer tossing a drunk out of a bar when I think about aliens getting deported. If I were government I would want it to sting a little so maybe they get the idea their not wanted here (and stay out).


They can do it already. Going into military has been path to citizenship for years...... Or at least that is what I heard..... May be wrong...

gose
11-20-2006, 12:37 PM
It's just a face-time thing for Rangel, a known east coast pinko lib.
The military command structure itself does not want a draft: we have a far higher quality military when the people that are there *want* to be there.

Coming from a country with mandatory military service I'm not sure I fully agree. I'm pretty convinced that if you get more competent people to choose from, you'll get higher quality.
I think that better and more competent people in the pool to choose from will result in higher quality compared to only using the ones that want to sign up. Sure, some of the drafts wont be to motivated, but I still think that you could build a high quality military with people from a draft.

People would still be allowed to sign up, I assume, so why would a draft make it any worse? If the people from the draft don't have any motivation or aren't very skilled then give them positions where neither is required, but chances are that you would end up with some people better suited for some positions than what you would be able to find among the people signing up.

So I don't really see how it would mean "Far higher quality" when only using people who signed up. Motivation isn't everything. (and besides... if you were to ask soldiers in Iraq, how many of them would really like to be there?)

chiefcrash
11-20-2006, 1:33 PM
It seems that drafting someone who graduated in "women studies" or "french literature of 17th century" would be waste of time.......


you can go through ROTC with those majors and come out a commissioned officer...

Yute
11-20-2006, 1:48 PM
Yeah but the difference is that you want to be in the military if you do ROTC. If you can lead a platoon, keep your weapon clean, react cooly in an ambush, I wouldn't care if you majored in underwater basket weaving as long as you were a good officer willing to do his duty. Drafting officers is bad ju ju.

The military currently has no need and desire for a draftee army. The fighting days of ww2 are over. I have talked to some people with some political pull about this - the idea of universial service might work - ie everyone that graduates highschool has to do some something for the nation be it joing the peace corps, working at the red cross, or joining the military (the difference is that you get to choose joining the military) - but the days of a draft are long gone, short of cylons coming in and nuking us.

It takes a good year for someone to go through basic, AIT other MOS specific training, so drafting people for short periods doesnt really give you your money's worth... The higher ups definately do not want a draft, it would go contary to the current policy of smaller, lighter, faster...

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 2:20 PM
While your at it ask them how many of them signed up to defend the United States not fight other countries battles? I mean while your asking them questions.

If you were to ask soldiers in Iraq, how many of them would really like to be there?)

chiefcrash
11-20-2006, 2:23 PM
I wouldn't care if you majored in underwater basket weaving as long as you were a good officer willing to do his duty

AH HA HA! i thought i was the only one that used "underwater basket weaving" as a major...

gose
11-20-2006, 2:34 PM
While your at it ask them how many of them signed up to defend the United States not fight other countries battles? I mean while your asking them questions.

Afaik, not too many other countries were fighting in, or with Iraq, at the time of the US invasion, so I don't really understand the question.

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 2:42 PM
When was the US invaded by another country? I have been here for the last 40 or so years and never heard word one about this event. maybe this will be easier how many of our troops are at war defending our country from this invasion ? 100 ? 1000? 5000?

The original question was How many of the troops in Iraq enlisted into the military to defend the United States not fight other countries battles?

I'm confused what about this question do you not understand ?

Afaik, not too many other countries were fighting in, or with Iraq, at the time of the US invasion, so I don't really understand the question.

gose
11-20-2006, 2:51 PM
When was the US invaded by another country? I have been here for the last 40 or so years and never heard word one about this event. maybe this will be easier how many of our troops are at war defending our country from this invasion ? 100 ? 1000? 5000?
The original question was How many of the troops in Iraq enlisted into the military to defend the United States not fight other countries battles?
I'm confused what about this question do you not understand ?

So what's the difference between fighting another country's war and defending the United States? Are you saying that it's only defending the US if the fighting is on US soil? By that definition most of the US fighting in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, The (first) Gulf war and Afghanistan were all other country's battles.

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 3:28 PM
What I'm saying is when someone enlists in the military they are doing so to defend this country not others.

WW2 we were attacked by the JAPS and that's according to the congress is what brought us into that war.

Not sure of WW1 or Korea, But Vietnam and the first so called gulf war we just lost men and $$$ to other countries as we are looked at as the Worlds peace keeper.

From what I understand having a standing army and navy etc is to protect your country not fight other countries wars or police actions.

With regard to us being in Vietnam and the 2 so called gulf wars what I'm saying is we are not defending our country as IRAQ did not invade us. we are only there on a LIE that out President told.

They were other countries battles as the countries where we were fighting did not attack or invade us.

The only attack I can remember was Pearl Harbor Dec 7 1941.

Fill me in on the other dates will you ?

So what's the difference between fighting another country's war and defending the United States? Are you saying that it's only defending the US if the fighting is on US soil? By that definition most of the US fighting in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, The (first) Gulf war and Afghanistan were all other country's battles.

Forever-A-Soldier
11-20-2006, 4:07 PM
SemiAutoSam, for your counting, you can add me to the list of who signed up to defend the U.S. I joined the National Guard (at age 36) just after September 11. I had already served 4 years as an infantry soldier in the 80s. I didn't want to watch this war (War on Terror) on TV, so I joined. I expected to be deployed at some point in time during my 6 years with the guard. Well, Iraq wasn't even on the radar when I joined. You see, when you join the military you often don't get to "pick" where you soldier. You just soldier where you are told. I didn't join to fight in Iraq, but that is where I ended up in for a year (18 months total deployed time btw.)

Yeah, I didn't really want to leave my family to go to Iraq, nor did I think that why we went into Iraq in 2003 was a legit reason.... BUT I'm a soldier and I decided to do my best "to do my duty to God and my Country". Perhaps that sounds familiar.

It must be nice to think you can pick and choose your wars (WWII - good, Vietnam or Iraq - bad)... well most of the time you can't. You take the cards that are dealt to you. You make the best of a bad situation and you do what you can for your country and the man beside you. Sometimes you just have to look for the moral goal in an otherwise jacked-up situation.

So in Iraq I did my best I could for the Iraqis. I helped ensure that they all got to vote, I participated in taking out some Al Qaeda in Iraq elements, I provided humanitarian assistance to over 100 Iraqis through my singular efforts. I did the best I could upholding American values of Freedom and Liberty even when those I was trying to help were busy trying to kill me. At least I did something. I also know what sacrafice is from the 18 men killed in our battalion, 4 of which I knew.

Sometimes being in the military is about doing something for your Country, even if the leadership isn't the best or brightest. I'm an American. I know what I stand for and Freedom isn't just for those in the U.S. I'm glad I did my part and as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, at least if I failed, I failed while daring so that no one can count me as one of the poor timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

F.A.S. Out

mblat
11-20-2006, 4:32 PM
From what I understand having a standing army and navy etc is to protect your country not fight other countries wars or police actions.

That is because you are naive. War is continuation of the politics by other means. Wars rarely, if ever, fought for any other but economic reasons. ( As the matter of fact the only wars I can’t think of economic reason for were Crusades, but even then we were talking about control over Mediterranean and that is major economic stimulus) Since we are the biggest boy on the market we never fought and never will fight other countries war (until we reamin the biggest), all our wars are just continuation of OUR politics. And that is to provide us with advantage when it comes to trade.
There may be host of reasons PRESENTED for going to war – but true reason always one and the same – provide for favorable trade conditions, which in turns makes ruling classes (and us by trickle down effect) richer.
And before you say – I don’t want to fight for the trade – remember that it is trade that pays for your apartment, your car, you jeans, you guns, your and your kids schools. Minute you stop fighting for trade it will go to somewhere else and there goes your and your children prosperity.
So “other countries” (BTW why don’t you just say Israel, what “other countries” are there?) have very little to do with us being in Iraq. If anything else we are using “other countries” to do OUR bidding. We want to control oil, we want to hold Iran in check we want to pressure Saudis and the rest of middle East into buying OUR weapons….. And we want to do all of it to CONTROL trade, since it is backbone of OUR prosperity and OUR power.

EDIT: Besides: What the hell does it mean "not sure about WW1"? That certanly wasn't a small affair, and if your theory doesn't account for it it means the theory is wrong.

chiefcrash
11-20-2006, 4:34 PM
When was the US invaded by another country? I have been here for the last 40 or so years and never heard word one about this event.

Ellwood shelling: The United States mainland was first shelled by the Axis on February 23, 1942 when the Japanese submarine I-17 attacked the Ellwood oil production facilities at Goleta, near Santa Barbara, California. Although only a catwalk and pumphouse were damaged, I-17 captain Nishino Kozo radioed Tokyo that he had left Santa Barbara in flames. No casualties were reported and the total cost of the damage was estimated at approximately $500.

Battle of the Aleutian Islands: On June 3, 1942 the Aleutian Islands, running southwest from mainland Alaska, were invaded by Japanese forces as a diversion to deflect attention from the main Japanese attack on Midway Atoll. Having broken the Japanese military codes, however, the U.S. knew it was a diversion and did not expend large amounts of effort defending the islands. Although most of the civilian population had been moved to camps on the Alaska Panhandle, some Americans were captured and taken to Japan as prisoners of war.

ttacks on Oregon: In what became the only attack on a mainland American military installation during World War II, a Japanese submarine surfaced near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon on the night of June 21-June 22, 1942, and fired shells toward Fort Stevens. The only damage recorded was to a baseball field's backstop.

The Oregon Lookout Air Raid: The Lookout Air Raid occurred on September 9, 1942, the first aerial bombing of mainland America by a foreign power occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese Yokosuka E14Y1 seaplane dropping 170 lb (80 kg) incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, near Brookings, Oregon. The seaplane, piloted by Nobuo Fujita, had been launched from the Japanese submarine aircraft carrier I-25. No significant damage was reported following the attack, nor after a repeat attempt September 29.

When the United States entered World War II, Adolf Hitler ordered German saboteurs to wreak havoc on the country. In June, 1942, eight agents were recruited and divided into two teams: the first, commanded by George John Dasch, with Ernest Burger, Heinrich Heinck and Richard Quirin. The second, under the command of Edward Kerling, with Hermann Neubauer, Werner Thiel and Herbert Haupt. The operation was called Operation Pastorius.

On June 12, 1942, U-Boat U-202, (twinned with the Austrian city of Innsbruck), offloaded Dasch's team with explosives and plans at East Hampton, Long Island [3], New York. Their mission was to destroy power plants at Niagara Falls and three Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) factories in Illinois, Tennessee and New York. A US Coast Guardsman, however, observed and reported them. During interrogation Dasch and Burger confessed to the FBI and obtained more lenient treatment.

Kerling's team were landed from U-584 at Ponte Vedra Beach (25 miles [40 km] south-east of Jacksonville, Florida), on June 17, 1942. Their tasks were to mine the Pennsylvania Railroad in Newark, New Jersey, canal sluices at St. Louis and Cincinnati, and New York City's water supply pipes. They made their way to Cincinnati, Ohio and split up, with two going to Chicago, Illinois and the others to New York. However, the Dasch confession led to the arrest of all of the men by July 10.

All eight were rapidly tried, convicted and condemned [4]. The President decided the sentences; there was no appeal allowed. Six of the eight men were electrocuted on August 8; the others, Dasch and Burger, were given thirty-year prison sentences. They were released in 1948 and deported to Germany.

In 1944 there was an attempt by two Kriegsmarine and Abwehr agents, Erich Gimpel and German American defector William Colepaugh, to set up an intelligence gathering operation in New York City. The pair sailed from Kiel on the U-1230 and landed at Hancock Point, Maine on November 30, 1944. The pair made their way to New York, but the operation was a total failure. Colepaugh turned himself in to the FBI on December 26, confessing the whole plan to the FBI; Gimpel was arrested four days later in New York. Both men had their death sentences commuted to long prison sentences, but they were released and returned to Germany during the 1950s. Gimpel was released after 10 years in prison and deported to Brazil; Colepaugh was released in 1960 and operated a business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania before retiring to Florida.

And obviously, there was Pearl Harbor...

That's just WWII...

read some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_US_mainland

Cypriss32
11-20-2006, 4:40 PM
That wont ever happin if they plan on being Re-elected!

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 5:01 PM
Chiefcrash

Very interesting....Some of that I knew about from history class 30 years ago.

But what of korea and vietnam ?

and to Mblat

SO we are in Iraq for the benifit of commerce ? thats why 2800 or so of our troops are dead ?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-death-toll-hits-2865-in-Iraq/2006/11/20/1163871333552.html

But at least we are real good at killing according to this Washington Post website 655,000 dead since coalition forces arrived in March 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
.

Ubergeek
11-20-2006, 5:15 PM
I wouldn't put the draft completely off the US plate, but I doubt it will happen just because. If we were invaded and/or attacked and we were against a far superior enemy than normal where the threat of losing was real, then it might happen. As long as our troops are kicking *** on their own then no one is going to want to instate the draft.

So long as we allow our troops to kick ***.

Why institute a draft when (to quote the semi-fictional Sgt. Barnes from 'Platoon') we're fighting our wars with 'one hand tied around our n***'. We have the tools and the technology defeat Islamo-fascism, but nobody seems has the stomach.

mblat
11-20-2006, 5:21 PM
Chiefcrash

Very interesting....Some of that I knew about from history class 30 years ago.

But what of korea and vietnam ?

and to Mblat

SO we are in Iraq for the benifit of commerce ? thats why 2800 or so of our troops are dead ?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-death-toll-hits-2865-in-Iraq/2006/11/20/1163871333552.html

But at least we are real good at killing according to this Washington Post website 655,000 dead since coalition forces arrived in March 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
.

I am not sure what are you asking me? Lemme tell you a story.
Story about "big chess game". Is started as a game between Russian and British Empires for the control - you guessed it - trade. Russia is continental country and as such always had difficulties with free flow of goods – it used to be ( and still is ) much cheaper deliver goods by the sea, than by land. Especially BEFORE the invention of railroads. So naturally Russians wanted ocean ports, and the only that were more-less available (meaning they could hope to get by force) belonged to Ottoman Empire. So result – number of wars – over hundreds of years between Russia and Turkey. Point is that Brits (and French) ALWAYS supported Turkey (I think with ONE exception, after genocide in Greece)
Why would they support Muslim country over Christian one, with whose czars, where in direct relationship with Rulers of both French and England? Why support totally foreign culture over culture if somewhat different, but still very close one?
Very simply -they realized – if Russia takes control over Istanbul (Constantinople) – it will be unstoppable trade force and as result unstoppable dominant force in politics.
Results of this game are hundreds of thousands killed BEFORE Russian Empire collapsed. One can only venture to guess how many lives “communist experiment” cost the World.

Why am I saying it? The reason I am saying it – nothing changed. If WE leave the Middle East – somebody else will come and get it. Be it China, India or Russia. Or they themselves manage to reorganize into Empire. ( I doubt this, but it may happened) And that would not be good for us – shrinking markets mean we will have to sell what we have cheaper and buy for more money. Our treasure will go overseas, with it our military power and influence…. And then our kids will go looking for jobs in other countries….


So YES – our soldier ARE dying for TRADE. Because if they won’t they will be no trade and we will fast to become Mexico. Big, poor and useless…… And BTW - that doesn't mean end of wars for us - it means that we will be dying trying to defend our territory from being taken over.....
Or you thinking that if Mexico though it could achive military victory over us they would hesitate in attemp to return SouthWest?

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2006, 5:29 PM
And your OK with this ? let the poor grunts in Iraq know this and put in their enlistment contract that this is what they will be doing and why they are there and lets see how many of them bail on Iraq.

This might be the case But I severely doubt that any of them enlisted with this in mind.

Part of the reason this country is failing is we import just about everything CHINA has to sell us. If we made our own products and stopped the slave trade products from entering this country we would be a lot better off IMHO.

So YES – our soldier ARE dying for TRADE

mblat
11-20-2006, 5:38 PM
And your OK with this ? let the poor grunts in Iraq know this and put in their enlistment contract that this is what they will be doing and why they are there and lets see how many of them bail on Iraq.

This might be the case But I severely doubt that any of them enlisted with this in mind.

Part of the reason this country is failing is we import just about everything CHINA has to sell us. If we made our own products and stopped the slave trade products from entering this country we would be a lot better off IMHO.

I am practical – read cynical. Of cause those people in Iraq signed up with something different in mind – after all Russian soldiers dying in Turkish war were sure they were fighting to free Jesus grave from heretics.

My point is that whatever reason is given for war – it is still OUR war, in OUR interest. Fact that it was prosecuted poorly doesn’t change that.

And we stop trade with China our living standard will go back to the level of 70s, early eighties and in China hundreds of thousands of people will die from starvation. With no war what so ever.