Rangel says reinstate the Draft before Syrian war

http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.

[quote="TEOTWAWKI"]http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

There is nothing wrong with being a member of the Air National Guard and many guardsmen have served in war zones.

Rangel has always been in favor of the draft, I believe.

I know this sounds crazy but why can't we warn the innocent people in Syria to leave and we take the rest of the country out w/ an A bomb like we did in Japan?

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Dreamsglore wrote:I know this sounds crazy but why can't we warn the innocent people in Syria to leave and we take the rest of the country out w/ an A bomb like we did in Japan?

It would affect more than Syria with the fallout due to the winds in the jet stream.

Nekochan wrote:There is nothing wrong with being a member of the Air National Guard and many guardsmen have served in war zones.

Rangel has always been in favor of the draft, I believe.

He served in Korea according to this link:

Rangel was born in Harlem in New York City. He earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, where he led a group of soldiers out of a deadly Chinese Army encirclement during the Battle of Kunu-ri in 1950

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel

Still how would the military afford a draft? Where would money come from to pay all those new folks? Most branches are cutting with the exception of the Navy I think. The AF is cutting troops to afford the F-35.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.

A tax dodger encouraging draft dodging.

I think this is Charlie Rangel at Basic Training.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Absolutely true. I get tired of people making fun of those who serve in the guard and reserves. Not only have they been deployed multiple times in multiple wars, they have much of the time been treated like the military's ugly step children when it comes to benefits. Fortunately, benefits have improved for them since 9/11.

I know this sounds crazy but why can't we warn the innocent people in Syria to leave and we take the rest of the country out w/ an A bomb like we did in Japan?


Sound crazy?... maybe....but it does sound consistent.

The United States will not be bombing Syria.

Nekochan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Absolutely true.  I get tired of people making fun of those who serve in the guard and reserves.  Not only have they been deployed multiple times in multiple wars, they have much of the time been treated like the military's ugly step children when it comes to benefits.  Fortunately, benefits have improved for them since 9/11.

I get tired of the worthless individuals who make fun of the men and women serving our country.....in any branch of the military. Pacedog has certainly had his share of criticism on this forum. I suppose idiots feel no shame when attacking his service.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Absolutely true.  I get tired of people making fun of those who serve in the guard and reserves.  Not only have they been deployed multiple times in multiple wars, they have much of the time been treated like the military's ugly step children when it comes to benefits.  Fortunately, benefits have improved for them since 9/11.

I get tired of the worthless individuals who make fun of the men and women serving our country.....in any branch of the military. Pacedog has certainly had his share of criticism on this forum. I suppose idiots feel no shame when attacking his service.

That would make sense if someone had actually attacked PeeDog for his service, but that never happened. If PeeDog has been attacked (a strong word for criticism), it is for his warmongering and his complete and utter lack of respect for the President.

Rangel would like for the people who start wars to have some skin in the game. I'd like to see this person on the front lines:

Dreamsglore wrote:I know this sounds crazy but why can't we warn the innocent people in Syria to leave and we take the rest of the country out w/ an A bomb like we did in Japan?

Wow! I am flabbergasted at this remark from you dreams.  


Think for a moment about the consequences of starting a nuclear war. I don't think America is the only one willing to use them anymore.

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Absolutely true.  I get tired of people making fun of those who serve in the guard and reserves.  Not only have they been deployed multiple times in multiple wars, they have much of the time been treated like the military's ugly step children when it comes to benefits.  Fortunately, benefits have improved for them since 9/11.

I get tired of the worthless individuals who make fun of the men and women serving our country.....in any branch of the military. Pacedog has certainly had his share of criticism on this forum. I suppose idiots feel no shame when attacking his service.

That would make sense if someone had actually attacked PeeDog for his service, but that never happened.  If PeeDog has been attacked (a strong word for criticism), it is for his warmongering and his complete and utter lack of respect for the President.

BS......and you know it.

Let them talk Joanie, I've been places and done things that they will only dream about or see on TV. While they were here on the Internet pontificating, I was actually out "living the dream". 26 years years and
Looking to do seven more God willing.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-reinstate-draft-we-go-syria

Not my Grandkids...nope. I will move them all to Canada.



T, they could sign up for the Air National Guard and be heroes . . . .

Some of the Guard and Reserves have deployed more than active duty. I have seven deployments since 9-11 and multiple schools for upgrade training and such.

Absolutely true.  I get tired of people making fun of those who serve in the guard and reserves.  Not only have they been deployed multiple times in multiple wars, they have much of the time been treated like the military's ugly step children when it comes to benefits.  Fortunately, benefits have improved for them since 9/11.

I get tired of the worthless individuals who make fun of the men and women serving our country.....in any branch of the military. Pacedog has certainly had his share of criticism on this forum. I suppose idiots feel no shame when attacking his service.

That would make sense if someone had actually attacked PeeDog for his service, but that never happened.  If PeeDog has been attacked (a strong word for criticism), it is for his warmongering and his complete and utter lack of respect for the President.

BS......and you know it.

Really? Show me an example of someone attacking anyone here for being in the military. That's not the issue. Support for our soldiers is not the same as support for unprovoked wars of aggression. There are those who stand to gain, politically or economically, from wars, no matter what the pretext...these people will always try to blur the line between respect for the military and support for war.

There are those who stand to gain, politically or economically, from wars, no matter what the pretext...these people will always try to blur the line between respect for the military and support for war.

You nailed that issue. Folks like Pace make this nation stronger, but you also make this nation stronger by having good debate on the use of military force in American policy. This idea that your opinion is less than a person who has served, or that you are not entitled to express an opinion on the use of the military, goes to the fundamental design of our founding fathers to have civilian control of the military. They were very wise men, and they knew the tendency for military to expand and choke off democratic institutions. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with being critical of someone who has served this country. This idea that the service of this country bestows angel wings on a person is fantasy. Each person's service is unique and different. Some at great risk and sacrifice defended their fellow countryman. Others took employment for a paycheck with very little risk or sacrifice. A nation does not remain strong without a vibrant military with the best and brightest defending this nation, but to generalize and bestow special status on all veterans may be better suited for a totalitarian regime. In a democracy there is free discussion of issues which may include military deployment and use of a nation's assets. That discussion should be free and there should be no off limits. I have always been respectful of those who have served, but this idea that respect should transform to reverence is exactly the seeds of destruction of a free democracy.

Floridatexan wrote:
Really?  Show me an example of someone attacking anyone here for being in the military.  That's not the issue.  Support for our soldiers is not the same as support for unprovoked wars of aggression.  There are those who stand to gain, politically or economically, from wars, no matter what the pretext...these people will always try to blur the line between respect for the military and support for war.

We're well aware of that last part darlin'.

Your support for your war criminal hero is proof darlin'.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXP4tRUuqUY

 

Seaoat, your sort of wrong about military service, especially with many who served in the GWOT. There is no guarantee of safety for anyone with the style of warfare we have been fighting since 9-11. There are no WW III style front lines anymore. Mortars and rockets have made even main operating bases targets and a place where even some kid cooking your chow can be KIA or horribly maimed. Convoy duty can be the worst and that was a hodge-podge of a conglomeration of non-combatants thrown together to keep supplies and such going from base to base. Lots of them died doing that job and/or were terribly wounded. So to say the JAG officer who was convoying from Kuwait into southern Iraq dodging IEDs so he could get from FOB to FOB and administer military justice is less honorable than another persons service shows you don't have a grasp of reality, Sure, some have more risk, but death is no respecter of rank or job when it happens. Anyone who willingly joined after 9-11 has cahones large enough they need a wheelbarrow to tote them since they knew it was not a matter of IF you deployed, but WHEN.

2seaoat wrote:There are those who stand to gain, politically or economically, from wars, no matter what the pretext...these people will always try to blur the line between respect for the military and support for war.

You nailed that issue. Folks like Pace make this nation stronger, but you also make this nation stronger by having good debate on the use of military force in American policy.  This idea that your opinion is less than a person who has served, or that you are not entitled to express an opinion on the use of the military, goes to the fundamental design of our founding fathers to have civilian control of the military.   They were very wise men, and they knew the tendency for military to expand and choke off democratic institutions.   Additionally, there is nothing wrong with being critical of someone who has served this country.  This idea that the service of this country bestows angel wings on a person is fantasy.   Each person's service is unique and different.   Some at great risk and sacrifice defended their fellow countryman.  Others took employment for a paycheck with very little risk or sacrifice.   A nation does not remain strong without a vibrant military with the best and brightest defending this nation, but to generalize and bestow special status on all veterans may be better suited for a totalitarian regime.  In a democracy there is free discussion of issues which may include military deployment and use of a nation's assets.   That discussion should be free and there should be no off limits.   I have always been respectful of those who have served, but this idea that respect should transform to reverence is exactly the seeds of destruction of a free democracy.

Bestowing wings of angels to civilians who have never served is just as much a fantasy.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXP4tRUuqUY

 

All good points Pace, but the truth is that 98% of military face no more risk than civilians in their day to day jobs. If you factor the deaths by terrorists attacks since 2000, and combine that with high risk civilian vocations, I would say that the average person enlisted for military service is safer than civilians in our higher risk vocations, and like the misconception that police and fire are high risk, you will find commercial fishermen, and lumberjacks face far more danger than military service, and their contributions are needed to keep this nation strong despite those risks.

PACEDOG#1 wrote: Anyone who willingly joined after 9-11 has cahones large enough they need a wheelbarrow to tote them since they knew it was not a matter of IF you deployed, but WHEN.

I dunno.  I wouldn't have any worries as long as I knew my life was in the hands of two of the most courageous and most competent commanders-in-chief our country has ever had,  Bush and Obama. I'd take a bullet for those two wonderful men any day.

2seaoat wrote:All good points Pace, but the truth is that 98% of military face no more risk than civilians in their day to day jobs.   If you factor the deaths by terrorists attacks since 2000, and combine that with high risk civilian vocations, I would say that the average person enlisted for military service is safer than civilians in our higher risk vocations, and like the misconception that police and fire are high risk, you will find commercial fishermen, and lumberjacks face far more danger than military service, and their contributions are needed to keep this nation strong despite those risks.

There are many issues other than job safety.  FEW civilian jobs, dangerous or not, require the deployments and separations that military families face, war time OR peace time.  Furthermore, a civilian policeman, firefighter, lumberjack, fisherman or any other civilian can simply walk away from the job at any time.    Try as some may, there is really no comparison between civilian and military jobs.

I'm for the draft as long as Rangel's children and grandchildren and the children and grandchildren (and spouses if age eligible) of ALL the politicians and ALL the industry leaders and all the wealthy are ALL equally eligible. And that includes Obama and Romney and ALL the others. And only IF they do combat duty like everyone else.