# Draft?



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

An article about a call for the draft.

http://www.yahoo.com/s/441260


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 19, 2006)

This is an interesting tactic. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out with the voting public in 2 years time. Ultimately, what it looks like he's going for is mandatory community service for every American. With people voting against support for war, and with Kerry's comments about failures/under achievers in society ending up in Iraq, it seems like a strange thing to do to the anti-war people that probably lead to a Democrat victory this fall.

Personally, I think he's trying to send the message of "Support Republican leadership, end up in Iraq....of course, you CAN always just perform mandatory community service as if you were a convicted criminal......". It didn't go over too well when some Republicans were considering a re-instatement of the Draft. I can't imagine it'll go over any better when the Democrats do it. 

The next 2 years should be very interesting. 

I wonder if we'll have to wear orange uniforms when performing this mandatory community service?


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 19, 2006)

There are times I am greatful to be a female with health issues...I don't think this will ever get passed and if you give the community service option I don't think the make up of the military will change much, the "elite" that he is trying to target will just go for the community service route.  Either way I don't think this will pass anytime in the near future....


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 20, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> Personally, I think he's trying to send the message of "Support Republican leadership, end up in Iraq....of course, you CAN always just perform mandatory community service as if you were a convicted criminal......".



Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?

I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.

I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.

Lots of talk and commitees in front of cameras. Little action. Nothing that risks it being vetoed.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 20, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?
> 
> I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.
> 
> ...


 
I think you're right.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.



It would never get out of Congress. This is just one guy trying to raise a ruckus. Nothing more. Got him on the news and gets people talking about it.

If it -DID- happen to squeek out of congress, considering that everyone more or less was elected in an anti-war election, the House and Senate shift again in two years. Dems know this, so they are not going to commit suicide.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 20, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> It would never get out of Congress. This is just one guy trying to raise a ruckus. Nothing more. Got him on the news and gets people talking about it.
> 
> If it -DID- happen to squeek out of congress, considering that everyone more or less was elected in an anti-war election, the House and Senate shift again in two years. Dems know this, so they are not going to commit suicide.



Good point. If there is only one guy talking about this, it keeps it in the public eye and scares the folks I talked about. If you get the entire Democratic party behind it, the target audience will know who to vote against in the next election. 

So we can expect a lot of talk from one guy with a lot of silence from his fellow party members.

I served in the National Guard. I joined freely with no compulsion. Having said that, I consider the lack of rights I endured to be extreme. It is needed. But it is something that the military needs to do if it is to do the job is is tasked with. I do not like the American Nazi Party, but they have a right to spread their doctrine just like anyone else. But if they did that while serving in the Army, there would be riots. Hence their first ammendment rights are second to the military's need. They can't join if they admit being a member.

So causing them (and others) to join and then telling them thay can't engage in their civil rights strikes me as wrong. And I find it ironic that it is the party that complained about our losing civil rights that is now supporting, or at the least remaining quite about, the drive to press- gang people into the military.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> with Kerry's comments about failures/under achievers in society ending up in Iraq,


 
Willful ignorance of all that remains about this comment creates an intentional mis-representation of what occured for advancement of political agenda on display with this comment. 




President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem. 

The solution proposed may not be adopted. Being able to talk about the issue is important important first step. 

What is the Republican Plan for fixing our damaged military?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem.



ahem...



			
				Kerry said:
			
		

> I have a plan. I can't tell you what it is, but I have a plan.



What plans have really been proposed? I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl is a solution...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> ahem...
> 
> What plans have really been proposed? I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl is a solution...


 
Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/burns-iraq-plan/

But, this is not a plan about fixing Iraq - which is completely broke and unfixable. It is a lost war. And only time will tell how many names earn a spot on its memorial. 

Congressman Rangle is proposing a plan to fix the military, which has been broken, by the President's war of choice, and its incompetent adminstration. 

They are, I believe, two seperate, and distinctly different, problems. 


P.S. A current military study - commissioned by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - *is exactly recommending an immediate pullout of Iraq. *To say that no one is proposing this as a plan to fix the Iraq problem is wrong. The three choices discussed in this study are "Go Home - Go Long - Go Big". EDIT - but, you probably are correct. Chairman Pace is probably not a "even a Democrat" - END EDIT.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.



This is a humorous one


> I do have a Plan, scout's honor I do.                    Ill post it on my web site, so youll know what's new.
> (right after the election)




Wall Street Journal


> I have a plan for how we can get there. I'm not going to negotiate my plan in the newspapers or publicly.



http://www.alternet.org/election04/19947/


			
				Kerry said:
			
		

> At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.
> 
> ...
> 
> George Bush has no strategy for Iraq.  I do.




powerlineblod


> "It will not take long to do what is necessary," he said. "I'm not going to give you a specific date, but I'll tell you that I have a plan, and I will put that plan in place."



He keeps talking about a plan, but never gives ANY details. He sure had one, but he sure kept it secret!


----------



## Stan (Nov 20, 2006)

I would like to see a draft, but only with a massive reorganization of the American military.  

1)  National Guard forces cannot be deployed outside of US territory.

2) Active members in or veterans of the National Guard exempt from national conscription

3)  Withdrawal of US forces from all overseas bases

4)  Constitutional amendment that US forces cannot be deployed overseas without a Congressional declaration of war;  President's role as Commander-in-Chief only to exist in time of declared war

5)  National conscription, at 18 years old, male and female, with non-military option only reserved for concientious objectors.  Two year  mandiorty service with relatively low pay.  Relatively higher pay and benefits for those who choose to re-enlist and form part of the "professional" military.  That way people who are given advanced expensive training will be a known quantity, will all have been through basic and several years of service, and will be less likely to serve dishonorably.

These changes will make the US VERY strong on defense, making it virtually impregnible, while at the same time hardly allowing for "expeditionary forces" to serve imperialist adventures.

The choice between security and agression vs weakness and peace is a false one.  We can be a strong and peaceful country!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2006)

Aint nothing wrong with our military..somebody calling it broken is talking out of his ***. Its the strategy thats broken not the military.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 20, 2006)

Interesting idea...  Point seems to be that those controlling when people go to fight are disconnected from those that actually go.  If the politicians children suddenly ran a risk of getting drafted and sent in they'd think a little harder about deciding to get involved in a war.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2006)

Great, well organized post... Here are some thoughts...



Stan said:


> I would like to see a draft, but only with a massive reorganization of the American military.


If conscription is required, why should we have a draft?



> 1)  National Guard forces cannot be deployed outside of US territory.


Honestly, i'd like that... We don't need a huge National Guard force in this case, especialy with point 3)



> 2) Active members in or veterans of the National Guard exempt from national conscription


If we have a small National Guard then thats not going to matter too much. If its large, we might have tons of people jumping into the Guard.



> 3)  Withdrawal of US forces from all overseas bases



For what reason? How do we validate treaties are maintained? Just trust? Having strategically placed bases keeps our footprint near critical areas. Maintain a sufficient presence to secure the facility, but no more...

Maintaining allies throughout the world is crucial. Our international footprint was small before WW2 and stretching across the Atlantic to help our buddies was difficult. I think maintaining facilities abroad helps bridge that gap for future problems.


> 4)  Constitutional amendment that US forces cannot be deployed overseas without a Congressional declaration of war;  President's role as Commander-in-Chief only to exist in time of declared war


I doubt that wil happen any time soon, especially considering that would be ripe for a Veto. Having one Commander-in-Chief is ideal. You don't want 500+ people trying to debate every deployment and major military decision. Beaucracy can be needlesly slow!



> 5)  National conscription, at 18 years old, male and female, with non-military option only reserved for concientious objectors.  Two year  mandiorty service with relatively low pay.  Relatively higher pay and benefits for those who choose to re-enlist and form part of the "professional" military.  That way people who are given advanced expensive training will be a known quantity, will all have been through basic and several years of service, and will be less likely to serve dishonorably.


This happens in alot of countries, Israel for example. Used to also happen in communist countries. Part of me likes the idea... I think it would really open up the eyes of alot of people. I'd take away the concientious objector clause though. Train them for a non-violent job. Recruiting, chef, tactics, other services, etc.. Even someone medically unable could do a non-physical job.

I don't think this would be exceptionally popular though. Also need to consider things like college. Possible deferment until after college, or you could go to college after service.



> These changes will make the US VERY strong on defense, making it virtually impregnible, while at the same time hardly allowing for "expeditionary forces" to serve imperialist adventures.
> 
> The choice between security and agression vs weakness and peace is a false one.  We can be a strong and peaceful country!



Imperialist adventures! LOL! Great phrase...

Strong and peaceful is wonderful. I'd like that. Until we live in a generally peaceful world where everyone is not gunning for us, I don't think living in a shell will work very well. not in a world that is constantly getting smaller and weapons have longer and longer reaches...


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Congressman Rangle is proposing a plan to fix the military, which has been broken, by the President's war of choice, and its incompetent adminstration.


 
Yup.  Chuck's trying to fix the military, all right.  Much like the way you would "fix" a dog or a cat.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> 1 - This is a humorous one
> 2 - Wall Street Journal
> 3 - http://www.alternet.org/election04/19947/
> 4 - powerlineblod
> He keeps talking about a plan, but never gives ANY details. He sure had one, but he sure kept it secret!


 
1 - Not written by Senator Kerry. Kind of irrelevant, don't ya think?

2 - An article from July 16, *2004?  --- *And it is a plan to end fighting in Iraq. Not a plan to fix the military, and share responsibility of the military with all Americans.

3 - Again, a reference from when America had reached milestone of 1,000 American soldiers dead. The current number is *2,867*. More than two years have passed since that article. Two years that have been far from status quo. Should we behave as if the past two years didn't happen? Is that wise? 

4 - And more of the same here ... old stories from a Presidential campaign that is long over. Had Senator Kerry been elected in 2004, you might have a point to bring these articles up today, if we were where we are. 

But, Foreign military engagements are under day-to-day control of the Executive Branch of Government. There is really very little the Congress can do. Yes, they have control of the purse strings, but messing with funding when soldiers are dying is a really bad idea.

As for plans, that *you *say haven't been proposed. Some of these have been around for a while, but they probably would work right off the shelf. You see, getting out doesn't put as much strain on the military as staying put. 

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/bringourtroopshome.php

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Iraq-Practical-Plan-Withdrawal/dp/1416534563

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/sr_highlight.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0919-22.htm

I think there is something here, that some may call a 'plan'. 

I'm wondering .. what is the Plan for success?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/burns-iraq-plan/
> 
> ...


 
Michael,

I am confused, as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq lists three options but I think your underline and bold is not in this article, and is your emphasis. Other than to mention that there are three options, and one is to pull out, I do not see this as the main option. I see none as being listed as the main option.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Michael,
> 
> I am confused, as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq lists three options but I think your underline and bold is not in this article, and is your emphasis. Other than to mention that there are three options, and one is to pull out, I do not see this as the main option. I see none as being listed as the main option.


 
Rich, 

The Post Script was added to that post because another poster made the statement, "_I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl_".

Yet this study, assembled at the request of Chairman Pace, does indeed "suggest" an immediate withdrawal. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html



> "Go Home," the third option, calls for a *swift withdrawal* of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.


 
I am not sure what is confusing to you. There is a difference in the words "suggest" and "recommend". I believe those words are close enough to synonyms to be considered to have the same meaning.

I believe I also ascribed the suggestion/recommendation to the correct entity - a Current Military Study. I did not ascribe the immediate withdrawal to Chairman Pace, except for the suggestion in the EDIT portion of my post. I probably should have referenced Chairman Pace's commission in that EDIT. 

Now, if you took the underlined portion of my post to mean that is was the preferred choice of the three suggestions, I can understand your confusion. I did not mean to imply that. Nor did I think think I referenced it as the preferred option. I was attempting to point out that there does exist credible suggestions for immediate withdrawal. 

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Michael


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Rich,
> 
> The Post Script was added to that post because another poster made the statement, "_I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl_".
> 
> ...


 

Michael,

When a committee makes a recommendation there is usually only one recommendation from multiple options or suggestions. As in the Committee recommends this as the course of action we should take. Or You Boss Recommends you for a promotion versus the others in your group who might also be up for one. 

So, I guess maybe I am just using the definitions differently than you, as I see a difference in the usage per corporate and governemental usages between suggest and recommend.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

These three choices were made by what was supposed to be a very secret group of individuals, presenting Chairman Pace with choices. That this secret information was made public means that we have a clearer understanding of the thoughts going into the decision that will finally be made. 

Of the three options, there is really only one that will be feasible.

"Go Big" is not feasible because we do not have the military capability. There are not enough inactive military to add to Iraq. We don't have the manpower or equipment. And were we attempt to 'Go Big', we would have take resources away from other areas of the globe where we feel those resources are necessary - Korean Penninsula for example. 

"Go Home" is not feasible because of politics. The Republican President is not going to 'CUT AND RUN', which is the only way the 'Go Home' could be spun. Even if it is the correct choice, and should more properly be labelled, Redeploy, Like Congressman Murtha described it. 

"Go Long" is the only choice of these three that has any chance at being 'recommended' or 'suggested'. We will increase the number of troops on the ground. We will continue to say we are training Iraqi's. And people will continue to die at an ever increasing rate. This choice is a disaster. But it is the only option available to *this* Adminstration. And, since they are running the show ... it is the choice. 

But there are quite a few other plans out there.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> These three choices were made by what was supposed to be a very secret group of individuals, presenting Chairman Pace with choices. That this secret information was made public means that we have a clearer understanding of the thoughts going into the decision that will finally be made.
> 
> Of the three options, there is really only one that will be feasible.
> 
> ...


 

From the article I linked in:


> According to senior military officials on Pace's staff, there are 16 military members, largely colonels who have recently served in the Gulf region, who have been meeting daily as part of the Iraq review. Pace has asked the group to look at what is going right or wrong in the military conduct of the entire global war on terror, including particularly the war in Iraq and what options are available to make progress.


 
I see the word Options here. 



> There will be no formal report or recommendations to Pace and there is no set timetable for any presentations or ideas, said the officials, who requested anonymity because the deliberations are not public. Pace, they said, will use any thoughts and options coming out of the review to help develop his own recommendations for the defense secretary and the president.


 
"No formal recommendations" - Hmmm I see they are making a distinction here between options and recommendations. As then he, Pace, will recommend (* as in the future not already done *) after he has reviewed the results of the review of the options presented to him. 




> A special advisory commission led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton is to issue its report soon, and there has been strong speculation that its members would propose a way ahead for Iraq while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely. The commission is expected to release its findings and recommendations sometime next month.


 
And then this "commission is expected to release its findings and recommenations next month" implies to me that the recommendation will be a specific strategy not a list of options.

Hence this goes back to my confusion that you state recomendation and stress one like it was the recommendation yet it was only one of the suggestions or options.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Hence this goes back to my confusion that you state recomendation and stress one like it was the recommendation yet it was only one of the suggestions or options.


 
I understand. 

It was highlighted because another poster said that "even Democrats" wouldn't consider such a thing. No other reason. I did not mean to intimate that it was the preferred option, just that it was an option.

I do hope that General Pace does get to make recommendations to the Commander in Chief. I am currently reading State of Denial, and one of the functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to be a military advisor to the President. However, under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Chairman was strongly discouraged from being independent from the Secretary.


P.S. And these recommendations/options/suggestions, will probably be off the radar screen, as the 'Baker Hamilton' commission report is due, and will be presenting their own set of options.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I understand.
> 
> It was highlighted because another poster said that "even Democrats" wouldn't consider such a thing. No other reason. I did not mean to intimate that it was the preferred option, just that it was an option.
> 
> ...




Now I think I understand. 

Thank you


I pesonally think that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should be able to express his/her opinion and present the options that have been recommended. 

I have noticed that before (* other Presidents *) the Chariman of the Joint Chief's had more visibility. The only reason I could see this is if osmeone his serving and does not agree with their Boss's approach and is just riding theri time until they get a new Boss. The other option of the Secretary not allowing is something I would hope would not happen, but then again given everything that the Home Land Security Act has done to the citizens, quieting one person might seem small to them. (* Yes I am very dissatisfied with the existing sitting goverenment, in which I consider the Congress and the Court System just as much as the problem as the Executive as they are not acting upon their checks and balances. Note: This is my opinion *)


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem.



The above scares the hell out of me.

When something to deal with threats to America are proposed by Republicans, the cry from the left is that we can't do anything if it infringes on the rights of someone in any part of the world. And yet, the worst infringement you can imagine on someone is being proposed by a democrat and no one from the left is screaming about it.  

Oh, and the military is not broken. To try to say it is in order to sell this grab at power and suppresion of our rights is not something I can let go by without comment.

I think this kind of gives proof to the saying that some  people think it is not fascism if the right people are holding the whip. It also seems to give an insight to the thinking of some that everyone belongs to the group and do not own themselves. We are all to be used as the group (and of course those in charge of the group) see fit.

Yes, my children would have no right to refuse to serve the greater good of _*The Volk!*_ They could choose to either go overseas and get shot at, or work as the politicians see fit for the "greater good." And as we have seen in the Soviet Union, the abuses by these people are more the norm than the exception.

But the democrats are not screaming about this like they did anything the Bush administration does. I have to say their silence, and the voices of agreement, scare me. They are the true threat to our individual liberties as seen in this bill.

I served and proud of it. If my kids want to serve I will be so proud. But I want them to have that choice to serve or not. I also can't respect something like this being promoted by people who have never served and never will. Rangell served, but others did not and yet they want others to not have the choice they did. They seem to salivate at the idea of having all those people to use for community projects like they use money for the pork barrel spending. That is, if they are being serious instead of merely using this whole thing as yet another way to try to gain power.

And oh yeah, I notice that the thread has been moved away from the draft to yet another attack on the policies of the president. I can guess why someone would not want this type of thing being discussed in a serious manner.


----------



## Carol (Nov 21, 2006)

In 2002, Rep. Rangel introduced a mandatory military service bill to Congress in hopes that it would make Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 21, 2006)

Let's keep the thread on topic, shall we?

The subject of a Draft is a serious topic in its own right and there are multiple threads where the handling of the Iraq situation and possible withdrawal is covered. Thank you.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 21, 2006)

I should have seen this coming.

Key Democrats oppose renewing military draft(no mention of republicans in the headline)

So, a democrat proposes the draft and that allows the senior members of his party to make a big show of opposing it. Read the article and see just how easy it would be for people to miss that fact and think that it is democrats standing up to the republicans on the matter. 

I thought they were being silent on the issue. Now I remember why I am so cynical about the political process. It is all a game to gain control of the white house in two years.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 21, 2006)

Really I think that this is just political posturing and nothing more.  The Draft is not going to be reinstated for one simple reason and that is that the military commanders do not want it!  They want soldiers that want to be in the military and voluntarily signed up for it.  The ony way the Draft would ever come back is if we were in a world war with an enemy that had lots and lots and lots of people.  With Nuclear technology being what it is, that is probably not going to happen for a long, long time. (*let's all hope so*)


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 21, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Really I think that this is just political posturing and nothing more.  The Draft is not going to be reinstated for one simple reason and that is that the military commanders do not want it!  They want soldiers that want to be in the military and voluntarily signed up for it.  The ony way the Draft would ever come back is if we were in a world war with an enemy that had lots and lots and lots of people.  With Nuclear technology being what it is, that is probably not going to happen for a long, long time. (*let's all hope so*)



The guy proposing it (Rangle) is a Democrat with absolutely no chance of losing his seat. Ever. He wins w/ about 80% every time. Its considered "safe" for him to issue statements like this. He has gone out publically and said he is not in favor of a draft. He even voted against it in the past (if I recall correctly). Just smoke and mirrors...

I'll agree with you. Until there is a true international war happening that require tons of deployments (think China or several wars at once: Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc), we won't need a draft.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2006)

As I read this article, I take away from it that the current Combat Commander of the United States Marine Corps feels the current staffing levels of the Corps are insufficient to meet the expected demands of the Civilian Leadership. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497276/

While a draft may not be the most effective way of meeting this Commander's needs, it is one way to do so. 

Further, it would have the added benefit of distributing the personnel burden of military requirements throughout the society that derives benefits from that military. 

With a bit of searching, it is possible to find similar concerns with the Army, and the Army Reserves. If you look at equipment usage, it is similarly being burdened by the deployement in Iraq. So many of those units currently not deployed do not have equipment for training. 

A draft would not solve this problem.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> While a draft may not be the most effective way of meeting this Commander's needs, it is one way to do so.
> 
> Further, it would have the added benefit of distributing the personnel burden of military requirements throughout the society that derives benefits from that military.



If you desire the military to do its job well, then there are a lot of things that we can do that are a lot less destructive of a person's civil rights than forcing them to serve and maybe get shot at.

I have served. It was my choice. For years you do not have the rights that you take for granted. Ever consider what would happen if you let the seargent know what you really thought about him? :uhyeah: Many of the things that you want to be taken away from military interogators on enemy personel as being too abusive are old hat for those of us who have served.

It seems a bit strange to be concerned only when it is someone else's citizens being subjected to being taken away and treated harshly.

And spreading the burden around to all of society seems rather strange. Are you going to force the Amish to serve since they also benefit? I would not force those that did not want to for whatever reason. Of course, I have served. If you have not shared the burden by serving in the military, then how can you say that others should be forced to?


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 23, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?
> 
> I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.
> 
> ...


 

Politicians.......ugh....

The reason I posted what I did is because it boggles the mind that any politician would say "We're the party that'll pull the troops out of Iraq. Vote for us and there'll be peace again and the troops will come home." and THEN turn right around, after being handed a nice victory by anti-war people, and say "You can either go to Iraq, or you can perform mandatory community service.". Is it just me, or does that boggle the mind?

Well, Pelosi did come out rather quickly and say that reinstating the draft was NOT part of the Democrat agenda over the next two years. I don't think there are many politicians that'll ruin their careers trying to get that passed. You have people on one side accusing the other side of fear mongering, then they turn right around and use the very same tactic. I don't really care which political party kicks the UN to the curb, kills the Kyoto Protocol once and for all, and works on keeping any "One World Government" crap out of the lives of, at the very least, the American people.

If Democrats want to abandon heavy Socialist leanings to do it, I might vote for them. If Republicans start behaving differently than Democrats, they might have a better chance. Personally, I don't think blindly following either party is a good idea. It makes it too easy to have the wool pulled over your eyes by thinking "Well, I'm an X-Party voter so I'll always support X-Party." and "X-Party would NEVER do...........".

Policiticans will do anything to disempower people and make them dependent on government. They bet their lives and careers on it. It's not going to change anytime soon. As for other posters here claiming I have some political agenda........here kettle, kettle, kettle....ppsssstttt....kettle.....I have something to tell you.......


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 23, 2006)

OK. A couple more thoughts on this. 

1. Amish and high-tech military equipment and weaponry? whoa....interesting.....

2. Let's say we forcibly spread out military service into all levels of society and take away people's choice to serve out of a sense of duty. Do you honestly want to go into a war zone with someone who absolutely does NOT want to be there, is terrified of being there and, because of this cannot function, and may object strongly to the deployment in the first place? Some people are wired for voluntary military service, some aren't. Aside from that, do you honestly believe the proportion of Democrat to Republican voters on the frontlines will be 50/50? I seriously doubt it due to the fact that you can just choose mandatory community service.

The "Opt Out" clause STILL makes it to where ANY child of ANY politician is safe from active duty. Kind of seems like another intention might be to kill off Republican voters, while keeping the Democrat voters safe and the Democrat party well entrenched, to me. Eh, it's not like Republican politicians are any better. It just happens to be that THIS TIME it was a Democrat politician that did something stupid.

When it comes to stupid, politicians on both sides of the aisle like to "reach across the aisle" in the name of equal opportunity and representation.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 23, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> The above scares the hell out of me.
> 
> When something to deal with threats to America are proposed by Republicans, the cry from the left is that we can't do anything if it infringes on the rights of someone in any part of the world. And yet, the worst infringement you can imagine on someone is being proposed by a democrat and no one from the left is screaming about it.
> 
> ...


 
Well said


----------



## Marginal (Nov 24, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> Politicians.......ugh....
> 
> The reason I posted what I did is because it boggles the mind that any politician would say "We're the party that'll pull the troops out of Iraq. Vote for us and there'll be peace again and the troops will come home." and THEN turn right around, after being handed a nice victory by anti-war people, and say "You can either go to Iraq, or you can perform mandatory community service.". Is it just me, or does that boggle the mind?


 
It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly. That said, the manditory service angle has a bipartisan fringe following. A few Republicans strongly advocate forcing all males to serve through a certain age range. Don't blame a party for the one or two crazies within that party.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> If you desire the military to do its job well, then there are a lot of things that we can do that are a lot less destructive of a person's civil rights than forcing them to serve and maybe get shot at.


 
I agree. First thing - before even considering a draft - would be to upgrade and repair all of the gear damaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing this would have a dramatic effect, IMO and the opinion of retired sr. officers I've heard speak, and allow the dramatically _more _experienced post-9/11 Armed Forces to do their job better. Unfortunately it's not a pork barrel project for most Congressional districts (D or R) - unlike most large scale weapons designs - so it is NOT currently being done (at least according to sources I've read in the media).


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 24, 2006)

Marginal said:


> It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly. That said, the manditory service angle has a bipartisan fringe following. A few Republicans strongly advocate forcing all males to serve through a certain age range. Don't blame a party for the one or two crazies within that party.


 
I completely agree. Well said.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 24, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> I agree. First thing - before even considering a draft - would be to upgrade and repair all of the gear damaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing this would have a dramatic effect, IMO and the opinion of retired sr. officers I've heard speak, and allow the dramatically _more _experienced post-9/11 Armed Forces to do their job better. Unfortunately it's not a pork barrel project for most Congressional districts (D or R) - unlike most large scale weapons designs - so it is NOT currently being done (at least according to sources I've read in the media).


 

This is a great point.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 24, 2006)

Marginal said:


> It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly.



The only other time he seems to have introduced the draft was in 2003. It hardly seems like he constantly. He did not seem to do it when Clinton was in office. He only has done it since Bush took office.

So it does look like someone playing politics with a serious issue and scare potential voters.


----------



## dubljay (Nov 24, 2006)

A new article on the topic of the draft.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/11/22/ed.edit.draft.1122.p1.php?section=opinion


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 25, 2006)

Some interesting points in that article:

1. Estimated cost of the draft would be around $4 billion per year.

There are going to be people who benefit from that $4 billion. That's $4 billion worth of vote buying money as far as I'm concerned. That also means more people dependent on government, whose lives are managed by government, everyday. Don's points about the removal of a person's rights while in military service, combined with forcing people into that position, AND socialist re-education/processing of children via UN programs and mandates doesn't sit well with me.

2. It keeps getting mentioned that politician's kids would be forced into mandatory military service yet there's the escape clause that allows for community service.

Name one politician, from either side of the aisle, who's going to have to watch their kid be sent into battle.

3. Redistribution of the burden of military service keeps being mentioned.

This is akin to the idea that certain people have won life's lottery, have stolen the money they enjoy from poor people, and do not deserve to keep money they've unfairly taken. Wealth redistribution is a huge Socialist agenda so it's no wonder that they'd see military service as "losing life's lottery". Remember, it was Kerry who said that you need to get a good education and make something of yourself, otherwise, you'll end up in Iraq.

It's also Kerry who supports the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N.. The Kyoto Protocol has been acknowledged, by the organization who oversees the $100 billion per year Global Carbon Emissions Trading market, as having more potential for wealth redistribution than any other option out there. This idea that "things need to be redistributed, by force, using the power of government, to what they consider to be 'fair and just'" is a Socialist politician's mantra. The draft legislation Rangel is wanting to implement is no different than any other grand Socialist scheme for disempowering individuals and forcing them into government service.

None of these "grand schemes" increases the freedom, or the ability to excercise free will, of the individual. Politicians such as Rangel and Kerry need to read the Declaration of Independence everyday until it means something to them.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> The only other time he seems to have introduced the draft was in 2003. It hardly seems like he constantly. He did not seem to do it when Clinton was in office. He only has done it since Bush took office.
> 
> So it does look like someone playing politics with a serious issue and scare potential voters.


 
I think voters would be more frightened if it had a snowball's chance of getting to a vote.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 25, 2006)

It seems kind of clear that the intent is not to get it passed. Instead, the intent seems to be to get young voters scared into thinking that _later on_ if the democrats are not brought into power, it may be needed to draft them and send them off to war.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2006)

If Americans continue to insist upon using the lions share of the world's resources, then it won't matter who introduces the bill.  A draft will happen.  Our continuous investment in the military has given us one tool to deal with future scarcity.  

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."


----------



## Marginal (Nov 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> It seems kind of clear that the intent is not to get it passed. Instead, the intent seems to be to get young voters scared into thinking that _later on_ if the democrats are not brought into power, it may be needed to draft them and send them off to war.


That still implies some broad Democratic strategy rather than just one nut who barely gets any attention outside of his gong show issue.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 26, 2006)

Marginal said:


> That still implies some broad Democratic strategy rather than just one nut who barely gets any attention outside of his gong show issue.



You always have to wonder about who is giving him support and controlling what commitees he is on without directly giving support. I think that if you look at who is trying to use this to reduce American wealth, power and influence, you can see who this benifits. Follow the money, or power in this case. And if it tears down one side of the aisle without those that control Rangal getting involved, I think it is natrural to think that they approve.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 26, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If Americans continue to insist upon using the lions share of the world's resources, then it won't matter who introduces the bill. A draft will happen. Our continuous investment in the military has given us one tool to deal with future scarcity.
> 
> "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."


 
A fair comment and I'll counter with a four part question. What other countries are competing with the U.S. to consume the lion's share of the world's resources, what measures are they taking in this quest, what are the results of these measures, and how does their military spending compare to ours? You're probably right about a draft becoming necessary but it won't just be about energy resources. Checkout projected world demographics and water tables for the year 2050.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> What other countries are competing with the U.S. to consume the lion's share of the world's resources?
> 
> All other industrialized countries.  The ones that have the highest populations have the potential ability to compete on the US's level of consumption.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 26, 2006)

Isn't this a bit off topic? I know that upnorthkyosa _always_ has to try to convince us that the only way for us to survive is to give up our way of life, retreat back to our borders and let China, Russia and countries like Syria take over international arrairs. But is not this talk about the draft a bit out of place for it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Isn't this a bit off topic? I know that upnorthkyosa _always_ has to try to convince us that the only way for us to survive is to give up our way of life, retreat back to our borders and let China, Russia and countries like Syria take over international arrairs. But is not this talk about the draft a bit out of place for it?


 
It makes sense in you consider the reason _why_ we would need a draft in the first place.  

I think that the connection between the draft our wasteful consumer culture is obvious.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 26, 2006)

one trick pony.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> one trick pony.


 
Speak for yourself...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2006)

After watching a program this morning about the National Guard at Kent State during the Vietnam war, I honestly do not know if a draft is a good or bad thing.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> After watching a program this morning about the National Guard at Kent State during the Vietnam war, I honestly do not know if a draft is a good or bad thing.


 
Overall, it is a less desirable thing. 

Yet, if the nation decides that it needs to fight a "long war", in which, the military is insufficiently able to address the goals and objectives, we are left with one of two choices; find a way to increase the size of the military to meet the objectives, or to alter the objectives so they can be met with the size force currently in place. 

Representative Rangle's proposal "ups the anti" for those who decide on where to deploy the military and the objectives they are tasked to complete. Congressman Rangle is a veteran of United States Foreign Military Service. He Served in Korea. He knows the stakes he is asked to vote on as a member of the United States Congress. That he desires his voting colleagues have a greater understanding of the potential consequences of their votes (e.g. their kids could end up serving), I believe, is a good thing.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You always have to wonder about who is giving him support and controlling what commitees he is on without directly giving support. I think that if you look at who is trying to use this to reduce American wealth, power and influence, you can see who this benifits. Follow the money, or power in this case. And if it tears down one side of the aisle without those that control Rangal getting involved, I think it is natrural to think that they approve.


A draft wouldn't really punish one side of a asile over the other. Warhawks would likely still obtain deferments en masse. (Be they Johnny Rep or Democratic.)

That aside, American wealth, power, and influence is currently being decreased due to a pointless war, not by moribund draft proposals.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 27, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> It makes sense in you consider the reason _why_ we would need a draft in the first place.



You mean the desire by a few people to establish that we are not a nation of individuals, but rather that we are all _owned_ by the state and have to defer our individual liberties to the great good of _*The Volk?*_

That is what I see from people who are honestly trying to push for the draft. It is either that or they are using the tactic of trying to scare people into thinking about the draft if they don't elect a certain party, give up our international prescence or something like that.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2006)

Goes right along with the socialist leanings rampant among a section of the left.


----------



## Kensai (Nov 27, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Interesting idea... Point seems to be that those controlling when people go to fight are disconnected from those that actually go. If *the politicians children suddenly ran a risk of getting drafted and sent in they'd think a little harder about deciding to get involved in a war*.


 
Wouldn't let me give you some rep for that Andy, but that is the truest post I've ever read. Kudos fella.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You mean the desire by a few people to establish that we are not a nation of individuals, but rather that we are all _owned_ by the state and have to defer our individual liberties to the great good of _*The Volk?*_
> 
> That is what I see from people who are honestly trying to push for the draft. It is either that or they are using the tactic of trying to scare people into thinking about the draft if they don't elect a certain party, give up our international prescence or something like that.


It's interesting what the we're at war filter can accomidate. (Torture, executive branch lawlessness etc) and what it cannot. Hard truth is, we're at war. The only way that war can be won is with boots on the ground. More boots than we currently have. (Unless the current course is wrong, in which case the millitary should be redeployed to meet actual threats.)

Funny how the draft manages to run into anti-american ground so quickly while shredding the consitution is for some reason our solemn patriotic duty.


----------



## Jonathan (Nov 27, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> It makes sense in you consider the reason _why_ we would need a draft in the first place.
> 
> I think that the connection between the draft our wasteful consumer culture is obvious.


 
Actually, it's more due to the fact that the U.S. wasn't equipped for much beyond conventional warfare.  The guys that would be better suited for the current situation in Iraq?  Those are our spec ops guys, and we just don't have that many of them to throw at the problems we're encountering.  We barely have enough manpower to run patrols and 'maintain order' as it is (recycling exhausted troops notwithstanding).


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

The Department of Defense runs a quadrennial review of the service. This is a very public report that states what type of operations the military expect to be able to carry out. Secretary Rumsfeld came in to the position with grand designs to remake the military. To change the force structure. (In fact, the Army is currently restructuring from 39 combat brigades to 42 combat brigades as part of the Rumsfeld restructure.)

But all premises are built upon the idea of the military being able to fight TWO Iraq size wars (regional conflicts) simultaneously. In fact, I think some of the reviews in the mid and late 90's were pointing toward addressing three regional conflicts.

It would seem that the Quadrennial Review Program, like most battle plans, doesn't survive the first shot. Now that we know what it takes to run a single regional conflict, perhaps we should re-evaluate how we are going to staff the military to handle two or three regional conflicts.

All military planning is built on the premise of a three level rotation ... Group A is in combat - Group B is training to go to combat - Group C is resting from combat. 

Iraq has destroyed this premise. Currently there are 19.5 combat brigades in service to Iraq and Afghanistan. This does not allow for two bridages in reserve for every active brigade. Watch for the 'Short Cycle' of the military units. 

And, because of this accelerated deployment, non-deployed units have received the lowest readiness metric the military provides; which limits their ability to train; which means they get deployed with inadequate training. 

Congressman Rangle is addressing one small portion of this problem. But, he seems to be a lone voice in discussing any of the problems faced by the military due to this war of choice - Bush's War.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You mean the desire by a few people to establish that we are not a nation of individuals, but rather that we are all _owned_ by the state and have to defer our individual liberties to the great good of _*The Volk?*_
> 
> That is what I see from people who are honestly trying to push for the draft. It is either that or they are using the tactic of trying to scare people into thinking about the draft if they don't elect a certain party, give up our international prescence or something like that.


 
I think it's more likely that Rangel's strategy is to load the military with dissidents in order to grind the military's capability down to nil.  It isn't about equal sharing of burden, and it's not about forcing our leaders to make responsible choices.  It's sabotage, pure and simple.  You can't deploy when half of your troops run to Canada or simply fall on the ground and sing crappy folk songs.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> But all premises are built upon the idea of the military being able to fight TWO Iraq size wars (regional conflicts) simultaneously. In fact, I think some of the reviews in the mid and late 90's were pointing toward addressing three regional conflicts.



No, the ability to fight two wars at the same time was queitly dropped during the cutbacks of the Clinton years. The Pentagon gave lip service to the idea since that is what their civilian leaders wanted them to. But it was understood that we would not be able to fight a war in Korea and a Soviet attack at the same time. The thinking was that there was no more Soviet Union, so there was no more need for something like that. And the money was better spent elsewhere when they got rid of almost half of the personel.



> Funny how the draft manages to run into anti-american ground so quickly while shredding the consitution is for some reason our solemn patriotic duty.



I was just reading an article on the complaints of guys on the ground in Iraq. It seems that the calls for us to respect civil rights has gotten so much influence that if they catch some guy with a bag full of timers that could be used for bombs, but nothing else, they can't drag him in for questioning. The insurgents now realize it and are using things like this to run rings around the guys on the ground.

So it is a little amazing that the guys that scream so much about rights that they do not even want some Iraqi taken in for questioning now saying that in order to do the job we need to grab American citizens and force them into service for _years_ of dangerous service.

It is either a case of people merely using this as a boogyman i.e.- cut and run now, vote democratic in the next election, pull our forces back to our borders and give up our status as a superpower, etc or we may indeed need the draft *or* people think we are all owned by the state to be used as they see fit. Rangal I think falls into the catagory of those using this as an excuse, but I am surprised that the usual people who call for more rights for Iraqi insurgents are not filling their blogs with rants about this move. Well, maybe I am not all that surprised.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> So it is a little amazing that the guys that scream so much about rights that they do not even want some Iraqi taken in for questioning now saying that in order to do the job we need to grab American citizens and force them into service for _years_ of dangerous service.


Usually the people screaming about civil rights are talking about rights extended to US citizens within US borders. Torture has more to do with basic human rights and international treaty obligations.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> No, the ability to fight two wars at the same time was queitly dropped during the cutbacks of the Clinton years.


 
The facts say otherwise. 




This is from the September 30, 2001 Quadrennial Review.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf



> Third, the new construct serves as a bridge from today's force, developed
> around the threat-based, *two-MTW construct*, to a future, transformed
> force. The United States will continue to meet its commitments around the world, including in Southwest and Northeast Asia, by maintaining the
> ability to defeat aggression in two critical areas in overlapping timeframes.
> ...





This is from the 1997 Quadrennial Defesne Review​http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr/sec3.html


> As a global power with worldwide interests, it is imperative that the United States now and for the foreseeable future be able to deter and defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in *two distant theaters* in overlapping time frames, preferably in concert with regional allies. Maintaining this core capability is central to credibly deterring opportunism - that is, to avoiding a situation in which an aggressor in one region might be tempted to take advantage when U.S. forces are heavily committed elsewhere - and to ensuring that the United States has sufficient military capabilities to deter or defeat aggression by an adversary that is larger, or under circumstances that are more difficult, than expected.


 ​


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The facts say otherwise.



You seem to have missed it when I said this.



> The Pentagon gave lip service to the idea since that is what their civilian leaders wanted them to.



Now, after all that some people have said about how the military can be pressured into making statements about WMDs and such to fit a political agenda, it would be really strange for them to now say that the Pentagon's official statements are to be taken without question.

And the facts are that the spending and personel cuts that happened in the Clinton years mainly fell on the back of the military. The Pentagon lost nearly half of its combat units. It is folly to think that you could lose half your forces and keep the same ability to fight two wars at the same time. The fiction has been maintained, but those in the military and know have not thought that the military could defeat two forces at the same time since the late 90s.



> Usually the people screaming about civil rights are talking about rights extended to US citizens within US borders. Torture has more to do with basic human rights and international treaty obligations.



Taking someone in for questioning is not torture IMO. And under the Geneva convention, the guys in Gitmo are not covered. Instead, the argument seems to be that we need to respect their rights because it would make us bad people. And yet, these same people have no problem with making a person a slave for the state for several years.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I was just reading an article on the complaints of guys on the ground in Iraq. It seems that the calls for us to respect civil rights has gotten so much influence that if they catch some guy with a bag full of timers that could be used for bombs, but nothing else, they can't drag him in for questioning. The insurgents now realize it and are using things like this to run rings around the guys on the ground.


 
To be fair, Don, just because somebody claims something doesn't mean it is actually true. You yourself have had firsthand experience with this.



Don Roley said:


> It is either a case of people merely using this as a boogyman i.e.- cut and run now, vote democratic in the next election, pull our forces back to our borders and give up our status as a superpower, etc or we may indeed need the draft *or* people think we are all owned by the state to be used as they see fit. Rangal I think falls into the catagory of those using this as an excuse, but I am surprised that the usual people who call for more rights for Iraqi insurgents are not filling their blogs with rants about this move. Well, maybe I am not all that surprised.



I actually seem to recall quite a bit of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy you are describing on the part of the Bush Administration during the 2004 presidential election. How did Vice President Cheney put it?? "Vote for us or the terrorists will attack you." Ah, yes.

To quote Borat: "Very nice."

Laterz.


----------



## TonyMac (Nov 28, 2006)

Social contract yes. Draft no.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 28, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Taking someone in for questioning is not torture IMO.


Depends on it waterboarding is the question mark. 



> And under the Geneva convention, the guys in Gitmo are not covered.


 
That's up for debate. A "debate" that revolves around a brand new term that the Bush administration dreamed up sepcifically as an end-around.



> Instead, the argument seems to be that we need to respect their rights because it would make us bad people. And yet, these same people have no problem with making a person a slave for the state for several years.


 
Yes, because again, all Democrats want the draft reinstated.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 28, 2006)

Understand that I volunteered for military service the very day I turned 17 when I tell you I would be on the first flight bound out of the country if a mandatory draft ever became law, and I'm not even draft age anymore.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 29, 2006)

Marginal said:


> Depends on it waterboarding is the question mark.



You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding. And waterboarding is something that some ex-military members on the board experienced as part of their training. So the troops on the ground are being told that a bag full of timers is not enough to take someone in for questioning due to our concern for rights, but we are good with the idea of taking away a few years of an American's life to serve the state. And those that are defending Rangel don't seem to have chosen _themselves_ to have served, but want others to.

Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.

People like Andy Moynihan, Jonathan and I all served and know that the draft is the worst of civil right's violations. I am proud to have served, but I would not force that on anyone else.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 29, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding. And waterboarding is something that some ex-military members on the board experienced as part of their training. So the troops on the ground are being told that a bag full of timers is not enough to take someone in for questioning due to our concern for rights, but we are good with the idea of taking away a few years of an American's life to serve the state. And those that are defending Rangel don't seem to have chosen _themselves_ to have served, but want others to.
> 
> Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.
> 
> People like Andy Moynihan, Jonathan and I all served and know that the draft is the worst of civil right's violations. I am proud to have served, but I would not force that on anyone else.


 
In all fairness I must clarify( I was going to edit my earlier post but it timed out by the time I got back to it). That I volunteered as soon as possible, went all the way to the Military Entrance Processing Station in Boston, but was turned away for excessive hearing loss, however the point remains I was otherwise ready, willing and able.

Just as I'd be otherwise ready, willing and able to leave the country if this ever became law.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 29, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding.


Only because I don't beleive your anecdote. 


> Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.


I personally think it's funny that people that have been facing us with the "hard realities" of warfare utterly reject the draft, but are cool with extraordinary rendition, a practice most likely identifiable with the old Soviet Union.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 29, 2006)

Marginal said:


> I personally think it's funny that people that have been facing us with the "hard realities" of warfare utterly reject the draft, but are cool with extraordinary rendition, a practice most likely identifiable with the old Soviet Union.


 
It's simple, really.  Citizens of a nation have protections that outsiders do not.  That's the government's role - to protect *its own* citizens.  Besides which, the "hard realities" of warfare do not require a draft.  They require an effective military, and at this point in our history a draft is counterproductive.  

Ask yourself how much more productive your workplace would be if everybody in the country had to take a turn working there regardless of aptitude or morale.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 29, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> It's simple, really. Citizens of a nation have protections that outsiders do not.


That's not wholly relevant.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 29, 2006)

Here's a humorous take on the subject by Scott Ott, the guy who coined the phrase "Axis of Weasels": 

Democrat Plan Summarized in One Word: Draft


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 29, 2006)

Being inactive reserve, I'll be sitting in Bagdad dodging bullets long before there is ever a draft... curses!
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2006)

I just want to point out something that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State said today on Face the Nation. 



			
				Colin Powell said:
			
		

> There really are no additional troops


 
When referring to the US Army, Mr. Powell said it is:



			
				Colin Powell said:
			
		

> about broken.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Dec 17, 2006)

If Charlie Rangel gets his way there will be a draft


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 17, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> No, the ability to fight two wars at the same time was queitly dropped during the cutbacks of the Clinton years.



Don, did your unit get disbanded durring the Clinton Administration too?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 17, 2006)

My thoughts on the matter are pretty simple.  How can any society that calls itself free even consider a draft?  About the only worse abjuration of your rights would be wrongful imprisonment.  

Jeff


----------



## Wolf (Dec 18, 2006)

Personally I believe everyone should serve their country; however, I don't think a draft is the best thing, because once you start forcing people to do something they really don't want to do, they don't perform as well, and may even jeopordize lives.


----------

