Rangel says reinstate the Draft before Syrian war

doubtingthomas wrote:Oh shit, I agree with Chrissy. No draft. Only reason we should ever require anyone to serve is if our shore's are being invaded.

LOL

Thomas, we have to agree sometimes. or either we are lying or something's wrong with us.

when I met my gf we were talking one day and decided we had absolutely nothing in common. So we each got a piece of paper and tried to write down things we thought we had in common with each other.

Her list was much longer. it consisted of elbows, noses etc etc...

that list now has grown and the point is, everybody has something in common or something they can agree on.


even if in here sometimes we don't want to admit it. but when we do that we shut off any chance at dialog. something I'm trying to improve on. Perhaps the nation could use a dose of elbow analogies. 

My final post on this topic, I hope, will serve as evidence that instituting a draft, even under the circumstances Bob describes, would be a smart thing to do. Our kids today get out of HS and generally have not a clue about the benefits of American citizenship or how it was accomplished. Requiring able bodied 18 year olds serve their nation in some capacity would make them grow up, educate them as to their service to America and prepare them to enter a highly competitive society with pride and a sense of accomplishment thus enabling them to enter society more mentally prepared to succeed.

May I remind whomever posted comments about not having a 'shortage' of troops to address our commitments is woefully under educated. The multi deployments of our troops and reserves were and are a direct result of a lack of an under manned standing fighting force, a 'world power' as the neo cons like to say. Our guys are exhausted and for good reason and recruitment levels have become very difficult to maintain; therefore, we need a draft.

And directly to our resident flower child Chrissy I will simply say you are so uninformed but you calling me an asshole made my day darlin' because you, too, must have one as well.

Hello, you would not have multiple rotations oversea's if the respective branches were not trying to reduce the troops. You still have many volunteering everyday around the nation for military service. There is no need for a draft.

Now knot I used to feel exactly the same way you do, I always felt since I had to serve everyone should. I no longer feel that way to fight for a country that has their nose into how other country's should be run. We have our way and let them have theirs. The only reason again we should have to fight any war is if foreign troops landed on our shores.

doubtingthomas wrote:Hello, you would not have multiple rotations oversea's if the respective branches were not trying to reduce the troops. You still have many volunteering everyday around the nation for military service. There is no need for a draft.

Now knot I used to feel exactly the same way you do, I always felt since I had to serve everyone should. I no longer feel that way to fight for a country that has their nose into how other country's should be run. We have our way and let them have theirs. The only reason again we should have to fight any war is if foreign troops landed on our shores.

******************************************************

AMEN . . . I know some here will interpret my position as a pacifist,nothing could be farther from the truth, however, if we are challenged by another nation I support complete annihilation; otherwise, stay the hell out of other nation's biz unless we are are bound by long standing agreements.

You'll never draft me.......

Chrissy wrote:

Bob wrote:

Chrissy wrote:Anyone who wants a draft is an asshole as far as I am concerned.

I would agree that anyone who wants a draft like all the ones we've had before is just that.

But if we can remove all the deferments and exceptions,  and make it a felony for ANYONE who tries to avoid it,  and apply that to every able-bodied man or woman regardless if he/she is the son/daughter of presidents,  congressman,  state politicians and local politicians and the CEO's and the wealthiest amongst us,  I would be in favor of doing this...

Whenever any military action against another nation is proposed,  a national draft lottery will immediately be activated.  And EVERY able-bodied individual of draft age will be eligible.  And "able-bodied" will be defined as anyone who does not have an illness or disability which makes military service impossible.  And those with cysts on their butts like Rush Limbaugh and those with "flat feet" will still be eligible.  

I have every confidence that there will be far fewer vietnams and iraqs after that proposal is implemented.  Which of course is the whole point.

why do we need a draft? do we not have enough volunteers?

knot not only is in favor of a draft, knot is in favor of a national mandatory service.

now, bob... don't I recall that you avoided the draft? but yet you are in favor of one as long as they are no simple exclusions so certain republicans would get sent off.

im starting to see the patern here of why yall want a draft. you think that the wealthy assed republicans need to be hauled off into military service...

even though it is already a fact that more republicans are in the military now lol but that's not good enough, no no , you guys want to punish the wealthy again, and this time its by making them go to war. because after all its the wealthy peoples fault we fight wars anyway, right?

am I close????  

Close but no cigar.  lol

Absolutely true,  I did and will always avoid military service for the vietnams and the iraqs and any of the rest of that damned nonsense.
I have absolutely no desire to give up my life for the stupidity of politicians.

BUT,  if we had the draft lottery I described,  I feel confident that we would only go to war when our country actually needed DEFENDING.  
Not because draft dodgers and chickenhawks like Cheney and Bush and Obama and Clinton and Reagan want to play John Wayne.  They wouldn't be so quick to play John Wayne when their sons and daughters are going to be doing the dying too.

And when the actual defense of our country is on the line,  I would have, and still will be,  perfectly willing to participate in that defense.

bluemoon wrote:No, but it's obviously a "pro-military" newspaper.  Don't  act like a fool.

I had no doubt you would not see why veterans should not have rights in court that civilians don't have, because I've read your posts and I know your leanings. It's the same issue that Seaoat was arguing the other  day. You are not capable of seeing equality between certain groups of people, whether it be the ones he was speaking of or whether it involves the military vs civilians.

You simply don't believe that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law, because they are not equal in your viewpoint.

There is no point in discussing it with you, because you don't have the rationality to see your deeply flawed nature on certain issues.

And it's certainly too late to start the discussion tonight.

Why should homosexuals have more rights than other mature willing companions?

Why should illegal foreign nationals be given special opportunities over others who have attempted to come here legally or are in the process of gaining legal rights to be here?

Where are the cries of warmonger and war criminal from the far left for crimes against humanity by a president who did not have Congressional approval to bomb a couple sovereign nations which did not pose eminent threats to the United States?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

knothead wrote:It would be in our national interest to re-instate the draft and make it mandatory to serve the nation in the best capacity a person can provide.  Today we have, in essence, a system that is centered on career orientation and like every other program people learn how to exploit it.  It would dramatically change the political dynamic as elected people would think more carefully if they were sending their kid off to a war zone but as of now the overwhelming majority of our military elected to do so as a career choice, for its benefits and perks not available to others.  

If you think those perks are so great for the job that's being done you're free to seek your nearest recruiter...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmPgVDbnJ4E

 

knothead wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Really knot, I expect a more educated response from you.  I cannot find the numbers for war zone deployments for our entire military but here is an article about the multiple war zone deployments that many of our soldiers have been on.  20% of our active Army have been deployed at least 3 times to a war zone.  I'm sure the percentage is higher for one or two war zone deployments.  I knew sailors stationed in Japan on shore duty who were suddenly sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for six months.   I'm sorry, but judging by your posts, you really do not understand.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0323/Sgt.-Robert-Bales-and-multiple-tours-of-duty-How-many-is-too-many

I agree that our military has been more than stretched to its limit with disastrous decisions to invade, occupy and rebuild a people and a nation that hates us.  If our leaders continue to involve our nation into every other chicken shit ME civil war there will never be enough soldiers to satisfy the demand for these occupations.  My argument and issue is we should not have an all volunteer force . . . . it's too costly and it does not reflect a commitment from all segments of our society . . . . our guys and gals are good people who elected to put on a uniform.  I say there are not enough of the higher income families with children sharing in these ill fated and endless struggles . . . . that are NOT winnable I might add.

If you think the military is paid to much then why are they being paid significantly less than their civilian counterparts who are stationed in those hazardous duty areas?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds

 

The constitution does not allow a standing army... except for naval protections and special forces... unless in times of war.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"

You can argue that it's merely a budgeting assignment... but both jefferson AND madison made clear the intent.

Of course, the Navy rules!

You're right about the Army but I don't think it's practical to wait until we've been attacked to put together an Army.

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” - James Madison

Remarkable quotes, Pkr. And that clause in the Constitution is something else too. I had no knowledge of any of that until now.

I can't help but be reminded of radio talk show host Mark Levin. He is the self-proclaimed top expert in the country on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. And Hannity and the the rest of the right-wing media see him as the same.
And isn't it interesting that I do not recall either him or his right-wing media sycophants ever making mention of any of this. lol

Really though...if you wait for an actual invasion isn't it a little late to call up an Army?

Nekochan wrote:Really though...if you wait for an actual invasion isn't it a little late to call up an Army?

Shows to go ya Bob. Neko... there were provisions for skilled special forces that would be applicable to todays technology.

But the main mass numbers could be quickly called up... tho not as many people are already able to be ready today.

Well, that's the thing... while it might have been a good idea 200 years ago, with today's modern technology/weapons I don't think it would be a very good defense for today.

We certainly aren't as able to survive or scout or even take care of a weapon as we used to be. A bunch of panty waists.

Mr Ichi wrote:All we would have to is declare the Military is for straight, white males only.  The resulting rush of all the minority  groups wanting to join would soon have the quota over the top with no complaints about pay or danger.

 

Mr Ichi wrote:All we would have to is declare the Military is for straight, white males only.  The resulting rush of all the minority  groups wanting to join would soon have the quota over the top with no complaints about pay or danger.

I would describe that as a creative solution HM, LOL