PDA

View Full Version : Top Democrat Rangle (D-NY) Reiterates Call For Draft


SelesFan70
Nov 19th, 2006, 08:33 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

:haha:

*JR*
Nov 19th, 2006, 09:06 PM
Maybe if our leaders had served themselves, they wouldn't be so quick to send other ppl's kids to die. (Or would have @ least fully armored the Humvees, etc. like the limo's that the members of Congress were evacuated from Capitol Hill in a year or two ago due to a threat against the building).
:shrug:

drake3781
Nov 19th, 2006, 09:11 PM
This idea needs to be discussed publicly. Too many people think they will support this so-called war, but *other* people will do the dirty work. I will be shocked if any action comes of it, but the debate - and the possibility that it could happen - are necessary to force people to take responsibility for their actions. (even if only in a mental exercise).

Pureracket
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:52 PM
He knows that he'll be defeated on this, but it's cool that he's seeking to draw attention to the rich blindly seeking WMD when they don't even fight the wars.

People who are currently in the White House, coincidentally, never served in the military.

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:55 PM
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel's logic is only partly sound. However, no legislation in the world will force kids of the rich and affluent families to enlist. Regardless of party affiliation.
Sure, their names may appear on the military rosters, but just as Bush did, they will probably rarely or if ever show up for training. Or worse yet, become officers and kill untold thousands because they never showed up to officerís training.
Also, the argument for a draft is yet unjustified, since the template for instituting one is based primarily os an illegal war. Therefore, IMHO, this proposal may get itís 15 minutes of fame on the floor of The House, but will most certainly die there.

Here is one of those times where a democrat has his head embedded firmly up his own a**. :tape:

drake3781
Nov 19th, 2006, 11:06 PM
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel's logic is only partly sound. However, no legislation in the world will force kids of the rich and affluent families to enlist. Regardless of party affiliation.
Sure, their names may appear on the military rosters, but just as Bush did, they will probably rarely or if ever show up for training. Or worse yet, become officers and kill untold thousands because they never showed up to officerís training.
Also, the argument for a draft is yet unjustified, since the template for instituting one is based primarily os an illegal war. Therefore, IMHO, this proposal may get itís 15 minutes of fame on the floor of The House, but will most certainly die there.

Here is one of those times where a democrat has his head embedded firmly up his own a**. :tape:


Well, I disagree with you. Just because the proposal will not come to a conclusion, it doesn't mean that the discussion and thoughtful consderation of the proposal is without merit. IMO it is not only useful but necessary to have this discussion at a national level.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The longer the system allows people to artificially avoid facing this truth, the longer we have irresponsible use and abuse of power.

Scotso
Nov 19th, 2006, 11:45 PM
I say we draft every American into the army. All of us.

RVD
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:01 AM
Well, I disagree with you. Just because the proposal will not come to a conclusion, it doesn't mean that the discussion and thoughtful consderation of the proposal is without merit. IMO it is not only useful but necessary to have this discussion at a national level.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The longer the system allows people to artificially avoid facing this truth, the longer we have irresponsible use and abuse of power.I think you may have misunderstood my post. Sure the proposal itself is worthy of discussion. And quite possibly some good will come of it. I'm at least hopeful.

But are you suggesting that it will pass The House of Representatives at a time when the Iraqi war is spiraling out of control?
I'm saying that it is a grave mistake to base such a proposal on a quagmire. And that Congress will NEVER promote an idea that jeopardizes their children. this, in and of itself, is the beauty of the proposal. No more, no less. :shrug:

drake3781
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:14 AM
I think you may have misunderstood my post. Sure the proposal itself is worthy of discussion. And quite possibly some good will come of it. I'm at least hopeful.

But are you suggesting that it will pass The House of Representatives at a time when the Iraqi war is spiraling out of control?
I'm saying that it is a grave mistake to base such a proposal on a quagmire. And that Congress will NEVER promote an idea that jeopardizes their children. this, in and of itself, is the beauty of the proposal. No more, no less. :shrug:

I'm simply saying it will not pass, but it is worth the debate anyway. And I don't see any grave mistake.

drake3781
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:28 AM
I'm simply saying it will not pass, but it is worth the debate anyway. And I don't see any grave mistake.

P.S. I've been awake for 28 hours... 2 more until I can sleep for the night... so please forgive my writing. (I usually try to be less blunt. :p ) :wavey:

harloo
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Rangle's proposal will be shot down once again, but I like the man's fight. Considering the fact that Bush will make one last push to win in Iraq by deploying 20,000 more soldiers someone needs to open up the debate. When he finally realizes Iraq is slowly becoming this generations Vietnam it will be too late.

Most Americans regardless of party affiliation are strictly against reinstating the draft. I wish we had an exit strategy but at this point the damage has been done. I'm wondering how are we going to get out of this mess because the insurgency isn't letting up?

Here's the article:

US plans last big push in Iraq
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1948713,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12#article_continue

drake3781
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:42 AM
Rangle's proposal will be shot down once again, but I like the man's fight. Considering the fact that Bush will make one last push to win in Iraq by deploying 20,000 more soldiers someone needs to open up the debate. When he finally realizes Iraq is slowly becoming this generations Vietnam it will be too late.

Most Americans regardless of party affiliation are strictly against reinstating the draft. I wish we had an exit strategy but at this point the damage has been done. I'm wondering how are we going to get out of this mess because the insurgency isn't letting up?

Here's the article:

US plans last big push in Iraq
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1948713,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12#article_continue

I actually think this plan is the right thing to do. (However, I had heard it was McCain's plan; now it's Bush's? :rolleyes: ) But how to get there - where do we get the resources - is what the Senate and ultimately the American people need to discuss and decide.

njnetswill
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:30 AM
The chances of the draft being reinstated are very slim.

*JR*
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:56 AM
I wonder if we'll evacuate our embassy in Baghdad by helicopter like in Saigon 1975. :o

Infiniti2001
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:51 AM
Rangle knows it won't pass, but it will put Bush on the spot to justify what he is doing, and make it obvious to all that making bullying noises toward Iran and North Korea is a a non-starter:devil:

mykarma
Nov 20th, 2006, 03:25 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

:haha:

I'm sure all of the pro-war advocates on this board will agree with Randle. :tape:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 04:03 AM
There are better ways to stop Bush's war and campaign of imperialistic terrorism in the Middle East. Rangel should be calling for impeachment proceedings as that would put a stop to Bush's criminal ambitions.

Infiniti2001
Nov 20th, 2006, 04:29 AM
There are better ways to stop Bush's war and campaign of imperialistic terrorism in the Middle East. Rangel should be calling for impeachment proceedings as that would put a stop to Bush's criminal ambitions.

No, no, we don't want Cheney in charge http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2086/iconredfacehz6.gif

RVD
Nov 20th, 2006, 05:09 AM
I'm simply saying it will not pass, but it is worth the debate anyway. And I don't see any grave mistake.:hehehe: So you believe that this draft proposal should be based upon a failed and illegal war [Iraq]?:eek: :scratch:
Drake, go get some sleep, then come back and we'll continue. :lol:

*JR*
Nov 20th, 2006, 05:15 AM
There are better ways to stop Bush's war and campaign of imperialistic terrorism in the Middle East. Rangel should be calling for impeachment proceedings as that would put a stop to Bush's criminal ambitions.
Impeachment wouldn't even pass the House, let alone get anywhere near the 2/3 vote in the Senate necessary to remove Bush. And it would generate a backlash that would help the Republicans in '08. The lack of calculation on this board of the effects of various political moves often amazes me.
:shrug:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:43 AM
No, no, we don't want Cheney in charge


Impeach the entire Bush regime!


Impeachment ... would generate a backlash that would help the Republicans in '08.


It didn't hurt the Republicans in 2004. But talk of a new draft has right wingers gloating on their political radio shows because they know it will help them in 2008.

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:20 PM
No, no, we don't want Cheney in charge


Impeach the entire Bush regime!


Impeachment ... would generate a backlash that would help the Republicans in '08.


It didn't hurt the Republicans in 2004. But talk of a new draft has right wingers gloating on their political radio shows because they know it will help them in 2008.

JR also said that it would not get the 2/3rds majority in Senate. So it would be a waste of time and taypayers money so you bet it would create a backlash. Only politicans like Jonh F(ucking) Kerry seek to actively impeach e Bush.

drake3781
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:26 PM
JR also said that it would not get the 2/3rds majority in Senate. So it would be a waste of time and taypayers money so you bet it would create a backlash. Only politicans like Jonh F(ucking) Kerry seek to actively impeach e Bush.

I think Kerry does NOT seek to impeach Bush. Do you have a source?

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:53 PM
I think Kerry does NOT seek to impeach Bush. Do you have a source?

No, I just wanted to say 'John F(ucking) Kerry' like JR. :lol:

*JR*
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Impeachment ... would generate a backlash that would help the Republicans in '08.


It didn't hurt the Republicans in 2004. But talk of a new draft has right wingers gloating on their political radio shows because they know it will help them in 2008.
Duh, the Clinton impeachment led to the Democrats actually gaining a few House seats in '98, the historically bad 6th year midterm for a party in the White House. (The Senate balance remained the same, but it didn't even muster a simple majority to remove Clinton, and thus seemed sane and sensible).

samsung101
Nov 20th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Rangel and other Dems regularly propose the draft.
He likes it.
He really likes to make derogatory comments about
the current military in the process of doing so.





Rumsfeld opposed a mandatory draft since the late 1960's.
He opposed a forced draft because who wants a person
next to you in battle who doesn't want to be there. He's
gone, so never mind.


Bush opposes a draft, as did his father.

McCain is iffy on it, mandatory service of some kind is
something many politicians like, draft or VISTA or PeaceCorps
or something like that. But, a supporter of the voluntary
service.


It is the Democrats who call for a draft regularly, look it up.

Carter is the President who instituted the draft registration service
each president must impose. Registering at 18 for it was Carter's
idea, after Nixon and Ford got rid of the draft.

Democrats and Draft go hand in hand.

Democrats in control of Congress, draft talk on the table by men
who support it.

Way to go Democrats.


Of course, it's all a ruse to remind us what they think of the miilitary
today: a bunch of losers and stupid people who are all black or
brown. As usual, the Democrats demeaning the modern military,
from Kerry to Rangel. Same old, same old.

samsung101
Nov 20th, 2006, 04:48 PM
Impeachment proceedings are just payback for what the Dems
felt was done to Clinton.

One tiny problem - Clinton did lie under sworn oath, he did
obstruct justice, the man admitted it in writing on his last day
in office.

Both are reasons to have had the impeachment hearings, and to
impeach him. Toss him out office, no. I wasn't for that. Then again,
a simple Clinton admission would have helped the matter - yes, I liked
under oath for personal reasons. It was wrong, but as the top law
enforcement office of the nation it was even more detrimental to the
office and nation. That's it.

Bush has 12 years of Democratic, and international material to back
up all of the Iraq and Afghanistan moves. Facts do that.

As for Katrina, ditto....please bring that on. With nothing to lose,
we can finally expose the City, County, and State failures in Katrina
in one city and one state. As well as the 60 years of levee funds
that were wasted on graft and bribes in Louisiana.

Yes, Dems, please do try to impeach a president for wiretapping
terrorist phone calls, please remind me that Dems want to give
terrorists and terrorist suspects more rights, than a soldier would
get.


Would it unite the GOP?

Did it unite the Democrats?
What do you think?

I would hope the Congress would concentrate this hard on
fighting terrorism and securing our borders. But, they won't.

griffin
Nov 20th, 2006, 05:31 PM
I'm sure all of the pro-war advocates on this board will agree with Randle. :tape:

The military itself doesn't, though. They don't want to deal with having to train and control large numbers of unwilling conscripts.

I have mixed feelings about required national service, but I do think the debate around the use of military force would be VERY different if it meant people would literally have to put their own asses in the line of fire.

timafi
Nov 20th, 2006, 06:29 PM
best people to draft are the mofos roting in jail for child molestation, wife beatings,rape,murders,thieves,every assholes on death row:mad:
the KKK, White Supremacist and hell's angel's:mad:
gang bangers turning our streets into the goddamn wild wild west and killing innocent people while at it:mad: :mad: :sad: :sad:
my fucking tax money is keeping these fuckers alive:mad: :mad:
they like violence so I say let them go after the terrorists:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
oh and that old fool Rangel better shut the fuck up with his draft shit:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

samsung101
Nov 20th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Vote Democrat - vote for the draft! You go Charlie.
You put that to a vote. Hurry up.




Whatever.........

We don't need a draft.

We need to end our occupation of South Korea, England, Italy,
Japan, and Germany. We need to stop being the European
continent safeguard w/our military presence there.

Send those troops home.
Send a few to Iraq and Afghanistan.


Increase incentives to join with benefits and after service
benefits, and the rate will maintain and grow as it has.

But, putting people by force in to service, isn't going to work.

We're spoiled rotten, and spoiled rotten apathetic people don't
make very good soldiers, no matter what color or economic
background.




China is building up a gigantic military arsenal and army w/the
profits from the US-China trade inbalance....so what. What do
a billion people do to scare the USA? Cold War II is on and
we don't see it, then again, we are at war with Islamic Fascists
and we don't want to see that either.

La - Dee- Daa.....

griffin
Nov 20th, 2006, 06:52 PM
best people to draft are the mofos roting in jail for child molestation, wife beatings,rape,murders,thieves,every assholes on death row:mad:
the KKK, White Supremacist and hell's angel's:mad:
gang bangers turning our streets into the goddamn wild wild west and killing innocent people while at it:mad: :mad: :sad: :sad:
my fucking tax money is keeping these fuckers alive:mad: :mad:
they like violence so I say let them go after the terrorists:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
oh and that old fool Rangel better shut the fuck up with his draft shit:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

So, you're suggesting we take violent, antisocial people, give the weapons and train them on how to use them...and Rangel is :cuckoo: ?

tiiim....

Rocketta
Nov 20th, 2006, 07:02 PM
Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan

By Richard Cowan 40 minutes ago

A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.
"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years.
New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.
Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army.
As Ways and Means panel chairman, Rangel will have a significant role in U.S. tax and health-care policy. That post will not necessarily give Rangel an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation, Pelosi observed.
Instead, Pelosi said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."
Previewing next year's legislative agenda, Pelosi emphasized pocketbook issues, saying Democrats will try to ease the "middle-class squeeze."
"We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab to President George W. Bush's Republicans who had been in control of Congress.
Among Democrats' top priorities are increasing the minimum wage, expanding aid for college education and further lowering prescription drug costs for senior citizens.

timafi
Nov 20th, 2006, 07:14 PM
So, you're suggesting we take violent, antisocial people, give the weapons and train them on how to use them...and Rangel is :cuckoo: ?

tiiim....

no instead of killing innocent people here let them go get the terrorists intead,not innoncent Iraqis either Griff,that's all im saying:shrug: :shrug: