Draft?

[dubljay]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

What measures are they taking in this quest?

Russia is the only country that attempted to keep up with the US and look where that landed them. No other country has the world-wide military capabilities that we do here in the US.

What are the results of these measures?

Many...including opposing unilateral action by the US on the world scene and the further development of nuclear technology.

How does their military spending compare to ours?

This graph is pre-Iraq.

Our military spending has doubled since then...while other country's have seen only modest increases...if any increases.

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.

This is true. It's not just about energy resources. That is why I didn't specify above. The truth is that the US consumes more then a third of all the world's resources and we have a very small fraction of the worlds population. This enormous imbalance would not be possible without the huge military we have built.

And in the future, maintaining this imbalance will require even more military expenditures as these resources become more scarce and competition increases.

This is why I say, if we want to maintain the consumer culture we have created, we will see a draft. It won't matter who is in power at the time.

 

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

one trick pony.

 

[Makalakumu]

one trick pony.

Speak for yourself...

 

[Xue Sheng]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kensai]

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]

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.