Political Crossfire Forums

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2685 Location: London

This war has been unpopular enough. If the draft was introduced there would be a political reaping for ther people that put it through.

The sad thing is we do need more people in Iraq.

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9399 Location: D.C.

blockhead wrote: Ozzone wrote: If Charlie Rangel pursues this, he is signing his own political death warrant.

What? He introduced it originally in 2003, he's been re-elected twice since then.

He's simply making a statement.

Yet, when asked today, he says he's serious...he clearly did not say he was just making a statement:

Quote: 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.

He's saying we need a draft to challenge Iran and NK? Is he saying we're going to war with them? We need a draft to send more troops to Iraq? I thought the dems wanted us to start leaving asap? Is Rangel a neo-con? :lol:

Someone might want to send Rangel - one of the most powerful dems - the cut & run memo.

freeatlast · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 12

Tetracide wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.
This is a dirty, dirty trick by the Democrats then.

Oh, please. Like Bush wouldn't like to ship out some minorities on one of his little incursions. Just a few thousand more to not vote for his failed policies.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18318

freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.

Ah, so that's it. Why, those clever devils!

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Kilo Tango wrote: blockhead wrote: Ozzone wrote: If Charlie Rangel pursues this, he is signing his own political death warrant.

What? He introduced it originally in 2003, he's been re-elected twice since then.

He's simply making a statement.

Yet, when asked today, he says he's serious...he clearly did not say he was just making a statement:

Quote: 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.

He's saying we need a draft to challenge Iran and NK? Is he saying we're going to war with them? We need a draft to send more troops to Iraq? I thought the dems wanted us to start leaving asap? Is Rangel a neo-con? :lol:

Someone might want to send Rangel - one of the most powerful dems - the cut & run memo.

Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,'' said Rangel

Same statement as 3 years ago.

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

Well sense i plan to go in anyways, i don't really care, but I wonder if being drafted would affect my career potential in the Army.

freeatlast · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 12

There's no way I would go in the military, even if there was a draft.

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:

Somebloke wrote: This war has been unpopular enough. If the draft was introduced there would be a political reaping for ther people that put it through.

The sad thing is we do need more people in Iraq.

Unfortunately I don't plan on being one of those people.

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject:

blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22323 Location: Sin City

freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.

Im goingot need you to substantiate you statements.... plesae show where Bush wants a draft..and furthermore.. pleases how where he wants poopr people and blacks to be the target of the draft.

ill wait

Deadlifta · Joined: 24 Jan 2006 Posts: 92 Location: Bay Area

Kilo Tango wrote:

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

We already have prohibition...

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject:

Thrilla wrote: freeatlast wrote: There's no way there will be a draft, unless the cons do it. Rangel is just baiting the Republicans to point out who the real warmongers are. Bush and Co would have a draft if they could figure out how to get one. Especially for the poor and black.

Im goingot need you to substantiate you statements.... plesae show where Bush wants a draft..and furthermore.. pleases how where he wants poopr people and blacks to be the target of the draft.

ill wait

You'll be dead before that happens.

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22323 Location: Sin City

Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject:

Thrilla wrote: Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Where did you get those statistics? Just curious.

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject:

Ozzone wrote: Thrilla wrote: Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Where did you get those statistics? Just curious.

Nevermind, I found it and you're right. Approximately 25% were drafted.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Violaxcore wrote: but just in case

I'm gay

We didn't ask, so you won't have an opportunity to tell. Thank Clinton. :lol:

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Violaxcore wrote: but just in case

I'm gay

We didn't ask, so you won't have an opportunity to tell. Thank Clinton. :lol:

good one :lol:

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

Ozzone wrote: Ozzone wrote: Thrilla wrote: Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Where did you get those statistics? Just curious.

Nevermind, I found it and you're right. Approximately 25% were drafted.

I wonder how many enlisted in alternative services after receiving their draft physical notice?

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Ozzone wrote: Ozzone wrote: Thrilla wrote: Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Where did you get those statistics? Just curious.

Nevermind, I found it and you're right. Approximately 25% were drafted.

The real strategic issue is the passive resistance of a hypothetical 1:4 soldiers of a fighting force would seriously downgrade the performance capabilities of that fighting force. Vietnam represents case and point.

The capabilities of having a 100% volunteer fighting force shows in the performance capability and accomplishments of said force. That is why Rumsfeld vehemently opposed Rangel's bill the first time in 2003. The same guys who hate the draft most, hated Rumsfeld more. :lol:

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Ozzone wrote: Ozzone wrote: Thrilla wrote: Ozzone wrote: blockhead wrote: Broad-based conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel, of New York, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''

It worked so well with Vietnam since most of the troops there weren't volunteers.

It pisses Sangel off that the majority of troops in Iraq support the cause. If you don't like the odds, change them it seems.

actually.. volunteers accounted for over 75% of our forces in Nam.

Where did you get those statistics? Just curious.

Nevermind, I found it and you're right. Approximately 25% were drafted.

The real strategic issue is the passive resistance of a hypothetical 1:4 soldiers of a fighting force would seriously downgrade the performance capabilities of that fighting force. Vietnam represents case and point.

The capabilities of having a 100% volunteer fighting force shows in the performance capability and accomplishments of said force. That is why Rumsfeld vehemently opposed Rangel's bill the first time in 2003. The same guys who hate the draft most, hated Rumsfeld more. :lol:

It could be a good thing, we will lose many a liberal to Canada. :P