As I was packing this morning, there was some newstalk on with Charlie Rangel. I was not listening closely, but it seemed to me that he was proposing a military draft.
I hope there is more to it (or much less) than that. why would the people who have been arguing for pullout for years suddenly want a draft.
FTR, I am against a draft. Period. It is nothing more than legalized, albeit temporary, slavery. People who wish to serve, I am proud of them and respect them. Those who don't, shouldn't be forced.
This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.
dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.
How does he explain the fact that about 90% of troops vote Republican?
RebelKev Wrote:dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.
How does he explain the fact that about 90% of troops vote Republican?
what does that have to do with anything?
niuhuskie84 Wrote:what does that have to do with anything?
A lot. Think about your question. Democrats, these days, aren't likely to serve. They have become ensconced in hedonism. Republican families throughout this country are already seeing their kids go to war.
....and, as a soldier, I feel this is bull****. If they don't want to be there, I DAMN sure don't want them watching my back. Rangel is an idiot. It's this "out of touchness" that will destroy the DNC. I guess you think you have a mandate, though. All of the protest votes got the Dems elected.
Please, do me a favor, raise taxes, institute a draft, and increase government spending on national healthcare. Seriously, please do this.
90%..... have any stats to back that up.
Machiavelli Wrote:90%..... have any stats to back that up.
I have this rag:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-2...383722.php
Quote:Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.
This says 73%. I was just throwing out a number. I know its high. Very high.
dwr0109 Wrote:This is the second time he has done this. It won't get anywhere just like the last time. He does it because he believes our leaders would be more cautious about going to war if upper class kids had a chance of being drafted.
He didn't say upper class. I think what he really means is "white". If there was a draft, I agree it should cut across class and race lines. But we are talking about a volunteer army now. There is only one kind of soldier - the kind that says "I will".
Maybe a disproportionate percentage of military volunteers come from the lower economic classes, but the same can be said of Kia drivers. Many poorer kids see the military as a way to start their lives in the right direction. I know a lot of kids from around here who have made the military a career. Why take away an opportunity from a poorer kid by taking his place with a kid that doesn't want to be there?
He realized that this has no chance in he!! of passing. He's just trying to make a point that the support for wars without diplomacy would drop if it were their sons or themselves on the line. That being said, it's a waste of time and money to promote this when there is work to be done.
As one of his points on the need for a draft, he mentioned the need for additional troops. does that mean all the anti-war and pull-out was just lies, just what they had to say to get elected, like their anti-corruption rhetoric?
That a draft would lessen support for wars is just BS. It's one of those things that you would think would work that way,but it doesn't. I lived through the Viet Nam draft era. Didn't work that way then, won't work that way now.
RebelKev Wrote:Machiavelli Wrote:90%..... have any stats to back that up.
I have this rag:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-2...383722.php
Quote:Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.
This says 73%. I was just throwing out a number. I know its high. Very high.
werent you the one giving me a hard time for quoting the army times?
niuhuskie84 Wrote:werent you the one giving me a hard time for quoting the army times?
...which is why I called it a rag. The military doesn't do studies on who votes for whom. It has better things to do. I go on my own personal experience and the first link I found, which was the Army Times. I've been deployed many times. I've been to the field even more times. I've spent my time in the motor pool recovering equipment after field exercises. I've also been in many units. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that most in the military are going to vote for those that support them....which are generally Conservatives.
BTW, there's a reason the Gore Camp was trying to get military absentee ballots thrown out in Florida in '00.
It is what it is.
This has absolutely nothing to do with which party gets more military votes.
Rangel isn't talking about the average, republican kid from everytown U.S.A. that makes the decision to serve. He's talking about the ultra elite-class kid who went to all the private boarding schools who would normally be nowhere near the front lines.
The upper-class prep school kids start getting thrown in there, (and start getting killed and maimed), and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.
dwr0109 Wrote:This has absolutely nothing to do with which party gets more military votes.
Rangel isn't talking about the average, republican kid from everytown U.S.A. that makes the decision to serve. He's talking about the ultra elite-class kid who went to all the private boarding schools who would normally be nowhere near the front lines.
The upper-class prep school kids start getting thrown in there, (and start getting killed and maimed), and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.
So, it's getting back at all those rich people. I see. Now, if the ones in it right now were forced into the military, you'd have an argument. They aren't, and you don't.
BTW, the last LT I had graduated from Brown. His father was also a multi-millionaire in the banking industry in Connecticut.
Quote:and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.
....and it didn't matter for Vietnam and Korea. You are assuming this was a war we could have done without. I disagree. Most conservatives disagree. Many Democrats....again.....disagree. Rangel is a damn fool. The draft isn't coming back, so you can stop your bitching about the evil rich.
RebelKev Wrote:Quote:and you can bet the political leadership becomes alot more conservative about going to war.
....and it didn't matter for Vietnam and Korea. You are assuming this was a war we could have done without. I disagree. Most conservatives disagree. Many Democrats....again.....disagree. Rangel is a damn fool. The draft isn't coming back, so you can stop your bitching about the evil rich.
I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.
JTiger Wrote:I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.
Would the intel have changed? Tell me, do you normally quarterback on Monday morning? This intel was examined by not only the President, but the Senate Intel Committee and it's house counterpart as well. There is no "Rovian" conspiracy. Look at the history going back to the mid-90s.
Here's what our president said about Saddam Hussein:
Quote:Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
More at the
Source Link
RebelKev Wrote:JTiger Wrote:I think if we had the draft we would have examined the intel a bit more carefully and concluded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any "yellow cake" those two items are what garnered support for Iraq, without that there is no way the security council would have voted for force in Iraq. We would have kept up containment.
Would the intel have changed? Tell me, do you normally quarterback on Monday morning? This intel was examined by not only the President, but the Senate Intel Committee and it's house counterpart as well. There is no "Rovian" conspiracy. Look at the history going back to the mid-90s.
FACT: there was no "yellow cake" obtained from Niger
FACT: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. no matter how much Cheney wants us to believe it.
Those are the facts, do you dispute them?
They had bad intel and some sources say that the bad intel was cherry picked by the president.
JTiger Wrote:FACT: there was no "yellow cake" obtained from Niger
FACT: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. no matter how much Cheney wants us to believe it.
Those are the facts, do you dispute them?
They had bad intel and some sources say that the bad intel was cherry picked by the president.
FACT: There was no way to tell until we went in, Monday Morning QB. There were, however, chemical weapons found.
FACT: Who said he did?
My hippie ass doesn't wanna fight in a war, esp one I've never believed in. you're honestly waaay better w/out me. Guns scare me to death. I love this country a whole hell lot, but Canada's pretty sweet too.
Quote:So, it's getting back at all those rich people. I see. Now, if the ones in it right now were forced into the military, you'd have an argument. They aren't, and you don't.
Nobody is forced into the military these days, but I do believe I have an argument. The U.S. military is sworn to defend the U.S. The question is about how we are using our military? Are we defending the U.S. or going after some other objective. If the children of the rich and powerful are on the front lines, there is a great deal more pressure to be conservative about sending them halfway around the world.
And in Vietnam, most of these types of kids were able to get deferments or preferential assignments to units away from the fighting.
And while your last Lt. may have gone to Brown. I know which socio-economic classes make up the vast majority of the military and it ain't banker's sons from connectiut.
You, actually served, so you obviously have a better understanding of the military than somebody who didn't, but I'm not completely ignorant. I live in one of the most military-dense areas in the nation, brother is an Army vet, and I have a lot of friends currently serving in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
dwr0109 Wrote:Nobody is forced into the military these days, but I do believe I have an argument. The U.S. military is sworn to defend the U.S. The question is about how we are using our military? Are we defending the U.S. or going after some other objective. If the children of the rich and powerful are on the front lines, there is a great deal more pressure to be conservative about sending them halfway around the world.
I don't believe you do. Since this war was initiated, guess what. People STILL enlisted. They STILL enrolled in ROTC. This was, IMO, and the opinion of many others, a damn good move on the President's part. Iraq HAD to be dealt with. Clinton said it. Kerry said it. Reid said it. Pelosi said it. Why is it that when Bush ACTS on it, he's al the sudden the bad guy? Oh, that's right, he's a Republican.
Quote:And in Vietnam, most of these types of kids were able to get deferments or preferential assignments to units away from the fighting.
Gore didn't. Kerry didn't. Next?
Quote:And while your last Lt. may have gone to Brown. I know which socio-economic classes make up the vast majority of the military and it ain't banker's sons from connectiut.
Well then, I bow to you. I only have 15 years of being in, or working for, the United States Military. You must have a Crystal Ball, which, as we all know, is MUCH more accurate than first hand knowledge.
Quote:You, actually served, so you obviously have a better understanding of the military than somebody who didn't, but I'm not completely ignorant. I live in one of the most military-dense areas in the nation, brother is an Army vet, and I have a lot of friends currently serving in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
Ok, here's the deal, the last statement I made was COMPLETE AND TOTAL sarcasm. Until you've been there, don't throw up some "friends" you have and think you have a f'n clue. What next, "I have a black friend, so I'm not a racist"? Until you've served, been deployed, followed a leader, or led men yourself, do us all a favor and STFU. You don't know jack **** about the military. ....and no, your brother's advice does not make you an expert. I've been doing this **** since I graduated high school. I'm 33 now. You ******* connect the dots.
I just can't get over this. We have someone that thinks he "knows" the aspects of the US Military because his big brother was in and he has friends in. Whhooooo. Oh, and he lives around the military. /rollf'neyes.
Here's a small list of places I have been stationed at, deployed to, or worked at:
Ft. Bragg
Ft. Hood
Ft. Lewis
Ft. Sam Houston
Ft. Gordon
Ft. Jackson
Ft. Wainwright
Ft. Richardson
Camp Red Cloud-D-2ID
Ft. Riley
Ft. Monmouth
Hospital Kaserne, Nurnberg(Furth), Germany, Rothlisberger Strasse
Darby Kaserne, Nurnberg(Furth), Germany
Camp Freedom, Mosul, Iraq
Camp Strike, Mosul, Iraq
....Shall I go on?
....but I know, this pales in comparison to your knowledge. You know, having a few friends in and all.
Oh, and Ft. Benning in the mid-90's at the Henry Caro NCO Academy for PLDC. Almost forgot about that one. Well, hell, I didn't list a lot of'em.
...but this still pales in comparison to 3rd-hand knowledge. That's to be treasured.
Wow I can't believe I'm even responding to this but I'm still up writing a paper so I guess I can take a break.
What is your freakin problem? You mad at the world or something? All I said was that, although I have never served, (and you have so you obviously have superior knowledge about the military), I do have a good idea who makes up the majority of the armed forces. It ain't Ivy Leaguers.
Freakin get over yourself and learn how to disagree with somebody (and possibly educate them) without getting personal.
Oh, and Gore was a journalist and Kerry chose to volunteer. If you're saying rich and privlidged kids didn't get out of going to 'nam you're either misinformed or trying to spin facts to make a point.
dwr0109 Wrote:And in Vietnam, most of these types of kids were able to get deferments or preferential assignments to units away from the fighting.
And that is exactly what will happen again.
OK, think of this. Suppose that everyone between 18 and 25 has exactly the same chance of being drafted. Totally random. So the kid studying bioengineering has the same chance of having his studies interrupted as the kid delivering pizzas has of having his career interrupted. The 24 year old in medical school has the same chance of being drafted as the 18 year old at the car wash. And the guy who is supporting a wife and three kids may get called up in place of the kid living at Mom and Dad's place. Or maybe his wife is called up.
Some people saw these as undesirable and/or inequitable results of a draft, so exemptions were born. Then other people would see some of those exemptions as bad so the rules would get changed.
So you tell me, exactly who, if anyone, would get deferments and why you would grant those deferments.
As to preferential assignments, that did happen, but it was primarily the children of politicians. Bush and Gore are examples. Just money was not enough. The upper class kids in general had no way to get preferential assignments, else Germany would have been full of the sons of doctors.
So after you tell me about the deferments, you can also tell me how you would make sure that powerful politicians of either party couldn't pull strings for their sons and daughters. You could institute a random draft today, and i guarantee you that no one related to Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, or Rangel will go to Iraq. No, not just the Democrat's kids/grandkids, but it will be easier for them since they are in power. How are you going to stop it? Put a quota on congressmen's kids, in proportion to party?
In any case, a draft hangs over the heads of the eligible like a sword of Damocles. You cannot get a good job unless you are a veteran. No one wants to hire someone who may be gone in 2 days or 2 months or 2 years - completely at random. The most important job qualification becomes draft status. You wouldn't wish this on yourself, I am sure, so why wish it on others?
This is only tangentially relevant, but Doonesbury's storyline this week is relevant to this conversation.
I know some of you disagree with Tredeau's politics, but his storyline following the character BD following his amputation is Iraq has been very informative and moving about what the wounded come home to, good and bad.
RebelKev Wrote:FACT: Who said he did?
Cheney
RebelKev Wrote:I just can't get over this. We have someone that thinks he "knows" the aspects of the US Military because his big brother was in and he has friends in. Whhooooo. Oh, and he lives around the military. /rollf'neyes.
Here's a small list of places I have been stationed at, deployed to, or worked at:
Ft. Bragg
Ft. Hood
Ft. Lewis
Ft. Sam Houston
Ft. Gordon
Ft. Jackson
Ft. Wainwright
Ft. Richardson
Camp Red Cloud-D-2ID
Ft. Riley
Ft. Monmouth
Hospital Kaserne, Nurnberg(Furth), Germany, Rothlisberger Strasse
Darby Kaserne, Nurnberg(Furth), Germany
Camp Freedom, Mosul, Iraq
Camp Strike, Mosul, Iraq
....Shall I go on?
....but I know, this pales in comparison to your knowledge. You know, having a few friends in and all.
Are you saying that only those that have served in the military at length deserve to have an opinion on national politics?
JTiger Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:FACT: Who said he did?
Cheney
Link?
RebelKev Wrote:JTiger Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:FACT: Who said he did?
Cheney
Link?
I'm thinking we will not hear more from JTiger on this. I remember no claims prior to the war about a link between Saddam and 9-11. I think this is just one of those things that BushEnemies keep saying until those predisposed to believe it think it is fact.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:dwr0109 Wrote:And in Vietnam, most of these types of kids were able to get deferments or preferential assignments to units away from the fighting.
And that is exactly what will happen again.
OK, think of this. Suppose that everyone between 18 and 25 has exactly the same chance of being drafted. Totally random. So the kid studying bioengineering has the same chance of having his studies interrupted as the kid delivering pizzas has of having his career interrupted. The 24 year old in medical school has the same chance of being drafted as the 18 year old at the car wash. And the guy who is supporting a wife and three kids may get called up in place of the kid living at Mom and Dad's place. Or maybe his wife is called up.
Some people saw these as undesirable and/or inequitable results of a draft, so exemptions were born. Then other people would see some of those exemptions as bad so the rules would get changed.
So you tell me, exactly who, if anyone, would get deferments and why you would grant those deferments.
As to preferential assignments, that did happen, but it was primarily the children of politicians. Bush and Gore are examples. Just money was not enough. The upper class kids in general had no way to get preferential assignments, else Germany would have been full of the sons of doctors.
So after you tell me about the deferments, you can also tell me how you would make sure that powerful politicians of either party couldn't pull strings for their sons and daughters. You could institute a random draft today, and i guarantee you that no one related to Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, or Rangel will go to Iraq. No, not just the Democrat's kids/grandkids, but it will be easier for them since they are in power. How are you going to stop it? Put a quota on congressmen's kids, in proportion to party?
In any case, a draft hangs over the heads of the eligible like a sword of Damocles. You cannot get a good job unless you are a veteran. No one wants to hire someone who may be gone in 2 days or 2 months or 2 years - completely at random. The most important job qualification becomes draft status. You wouldn't wish this on yourself, I am sure, so why wish it on others?
No response from dwr0109. QED.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:JTiger Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:FACT: Who said he did?
Cheney
Link?
I'm thinking we will not hear more from JTiger on this. I remember no claims prior to the war about a link between Saddam and 9-11. I think this is just one of those things that BushEnemies keep saying until those predisposed to believe it think it is fact.
He was on Meet the Press or Face the Nation when he said this. The link I had on it is no longer working. Here's another one I found with a quick google search
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Jun16.html
JTiger Wrote:He was on Meet the Press or Face the Nation when he said this. The link I had on it is no longer working. Here's another one I found with a quick google search
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Jun16.html
Wait, are you saying that Iraq didn't have connections to terrorism?
RebelKev Wrote:JTiger Wrote:He was on Meet the Press or Face the Nation when he said this. The link I had on it is no longer working. Here's another one I found with a quick google search
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Jun16.html
Wait, are you saying that Iraq didn't have connections to terrorism?
Not to the ones that attacked us on 9/11.
JTiger Wrote:Not to the ones that attacked us on 9/11.
Is there a difference between Muslim terrorists?
Quote:Is there a difference between Muslim terrorists?
Huge..... Great....... Outstanding differences. Is their a difference in Hamas and Hizbollah? uhhhhh YES!!!! and any INTELLIGENT dialouge would begin there. How do we exploit these differences? Another interesting conversation.
This equates to they'll greet us as liberators crap we heard from Cheney. Yeah the Shia will greet us that way, because my enemies enemy is my friend. (Chalabi) So we cowboy on in, not even having a clue about the secetarian strife it will cause. Now Shia are the regional influence. Who else is Shia. Iran. Now Sunni's will be drawn into this because they can't sit and watch fellow Sunni's get slaughtered and it will spiral out of control. When Putin throws his weight behind Iran watch out. That's where I see this going. Now the Intelligent step would be to use Putin's influence on Iran. It's definetly there but how do we triangulate it. It's an outrage but WE need Putin now more than ever. Maybe George can
gaze into his eyes again? Our Democracy fiasco is now officially D.O.A. Would you like to see Democracy in Egypt? How about Saudi Arabia? You think we have trouble now?
eckkkk
RebelKev Wrote:JTiger Wrote:Not to the ones that attacked us on 9/11.
Is there a difference between Muslim terrorists?
Yes, look at the ones killing each other in Iraq right now.
Does that clear it up for you?
chirp..... chirp....
Is that crickets.........................
Ok, Machiavelli, I think you've baited Kev enough.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Ok, Machiavelli, I think you've baited Kev enough.
Nah, I'm not baited. The way I see it, ALL of these terrorist organizations beat the same drum. Death to America. Death to Israel. Islam will Dominate. Bow to Allah. Blah, blah, blah, and blah.
I see no difference in the members of Al Qaeda that want to see me dead than I do the members of Islamic Jihad that want to see me dead. They are ALL fighting for their religion...which, by the way, is Islam.
Kev.... I wanted to needle you back for my "He who smealt it" when you called my post the dumbest ever. I've been waiting for the opportunity, it might not have been the best time to pounce.
However, you have surprised me in your response. That was a very level headed response to my baiting. Your stock just went up a couple of ticks. I'm going to remove it. Please accept my apologizes.
Machiavelli Wrote:Kev.... I wanted to needle you back for my "He who smealt it" when you called my post the dumbest ever. I've been waiting for the opportunity, it might not have been the best time to pounce.
However, you have surprised me in your response. That was a very level headed response to my baiting. Your stock just went up a couple of ticks. I'm going to remove it. Please accept my apologizes.
Hello, I'm Rebelkev. Have we met?
Remove it? Why? If that's how you feel, keep it. I will call you on everything I think is f'ed up and you can call me on everything you think is f'ed up. That's how it works.
Of course, I'm never wrong, so I don't know why you guys always waste your breath.
It's more like wasting Falangi effort. ;-)