Charlie Rangel (D-NY) Calls for a Draft (and more!) (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Thi isn't some Democrat platform. This is one or two yahoo's looking to get a little populace press. Rangel has been on this kick for a while now and hasn't recieved support from the rest of the Democrats yet. This is the same man that called Cheney a SOB so take him with a grain of slightly looney sand.
 
MayberrySaint said:
I have to agree with Rangel on this point. I think if our politicians knew that they were sending children of their constituents over to fight a war, they may have second thoughts.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they would thus be able to get their sons/daughters/family the cushion job that would have their "service" as behind a desk as far away from the fight as possible.

DadsDream said:
...after all, it worked for the Soviet Union for over half a century.
Click to expand...

+1 - I often don't agree with DD on a lot of his views, but I'm definatly with him on this one.
 
I can't believe anyone would think this is a good idea. I can't imaging the reaction if Bush proposed this.
 
Saint by the Bay said:
Thi isn't some Democrat platform.
Click to expand...

Sorry, SBTB, but you're wrong. It's old timey Democrat. Think FDR and the WPA. Think JFK and the Peace Corps.

The problem with universal, mandatory two-year federal service is that it immediately runs afoul of infringing on private industry.

It's just like using inmates to undercut private contractors for clearing land (a la Cool Hand Luke), you destroy jobs when you assign conscripts to do anything.
 
Russia is said to cut the mandatory service requirement to one year. I don't know if that's happened.
 
DadsDream said:
Sorry, SBTB, but you're wrong. It's old timey Democrat. Think FDR and the WPA. Think JFK and the Peace Corps.

The problem with universal, mandatory two-year federal service is that it immediately runs afoul of infringing on private industry.

It's just like using inmates to undercut private contractors for clearing land (a la Cool Hand Luke), you destroy jobs when you assign conscripts to do anything.
Click to expand...

I have this strange penchant for living in the now. In the now I've heard Rangel and one other ever mention this.

I love the new millennium.

Also, I already stated I don't support it. I think conscription and freedom simply don't mix.

However, I also find it silly to engage in a round of Democrat bashing and draft paranoia based on one frankly mentally unstable media whore congressmans statements and playing them off as the platform of the 2006 Democratic party.
 
DadsDream said:
Bull.

Two years compulsory federal service for everyone is an old, old Democratic agenda item and it has nothing to do with politicians having kids in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Dads...where is your info on this? I have never heard a Dem push for this service until Rangel. I like to think I am semi-well-informed...would appreciate any info.
Rangel did make the point on the Sunday morning talk shows that he was pushing the draft for the reason that members of the elite class in America were not sending sons and daughters to Iraq. He may have been disingenuous in his reasons but it has been a consistent message of his for the last 2 years.
 
Also, using the USSR as the example of forced service when discussing the U.S. is playing ye ole "if the Soviets did it it's bad" card. Countries like Israel, Turkey, South Korea and modern Germany are having great success with it. Israel specifically is a good example of how it CAN work if excecuted properly. Israeli youth have a great since of pride about doing their 3 years of mandatory service.

It's still a bad idea for us but the debate can be broadened beyond the old Soviet Union.
 
It's not Democrat bashing.

Where's my info?

I've got a BA in History.

Go look it up yourself.
 
Oh, the "Fortunate Son" argument still doesn't work for Iraq either. Election's over. You can drop it now. :)
 
DadsDream said:
Sorry, SBTB, but you're wrong. It's old timey Democrat. Think FDR and the WPA. Think JFK and the Peace Corps.

The problem with universal, mandatory two-year federal service is that it immediately runs afoul of infringing on private industry.

It's just like using inmates to undercut private contractors for clearing land (a la Cool Hand Luke), you destroy jobs when you assign conscripts to do anything.
Click to expand...


No, he's not wrong. Just because ONE Democrat has revived something which he's used as leverage to oppose the war, it's not all of a sudden going to be a platform of the Democratic Party right now.

For Rangel, clamoring for a draft is his way (even if it isn't necessarily true) to proclaim that only the poor, downtrodden individuals are fighting the war.

This proclamation is just another way to oppose the war, get attention and cause get the media's toungues wagging.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Neither party would dare even seriously passing a draft for an already unpopular war. It would be political suicide.

Just because past Democratic Presidents have supported and enforced a draft, doesn't mean that it will become part of the Democratic Party's program for the new Congress.

It's like arguing that since the Republican Party in the 1990s pushed for term limits--if one rogue Republican revives it now, it will mean somehow that term limits will be the next issue Republicans rally around.

It's faulty reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Saint, you remember the anti-draft riots and draft card burnings in the 60's to protest the Vietnam War and the like, well that wasnt such a resounding success, in fact it hurt us more then it helped us, Rangel may be playing into some other people's hands and he doenst realize it yet. Rangel doesnt seem to get it quite yet, he doenst realize the mistake from Vietnam and the example of forced service doesnt work well, espeically on college campuses where it was vehemently opposed.

He needs to rethink what he is doing here, we are not Isreal, Turkey, and Germany here and the situations is way different then theirs.

If you want a repeat of Vietnam and the draft problem it had, then you will get it with this moron's draft bill
 
I dont know REb, old habits or traditions die hard. While I do agree that the Dems of today are different then the old Dixiecrats that ruled the south for 100 years, their populism is still to be seen somewhat, Rangel is an old school Democrat from Harlem that has publicly state he doesnt care what the polls say he wants a draft regardless, and their will be ways to get around it, like loopholes and provisions saying this and that.

This is a very radical proposal from a radical man who doesnt realize what he is doing yet
 
And this notion that the Selective Service is somehow a partisan policy is a bit misleading.

Nearly 400,000 men were drafted during the Nixon Administration.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom