Senior Democrat renews call for military draft

Discussion in 'Military' started by Stephanie, Nov 19, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    :rolleyes:

    By Jackie Frank
    Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:41pm ET
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

    U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

    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.

    Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

    "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

    The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

    Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

    The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

    Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.
    http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...OC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-DRAFT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
     
  2. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    The Dems want to reinstate the draft for one reason only...it will open the door for them to be able to further criticize the military. At this time, they can't make the argument "they're dragging unwilling young men and women off to their deaths". And that two-faced c**k-s*cker Rangel would be the first to present such an argument.
     
  3. theHawk
    Online

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,853
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,739
    Wrong, this is a highly calculated political move to appease Israel's interests.

    I tried warning you people before....no one listened:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34150&highlight=draft
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    No, MissileMan's right. Rangel introduced it for two reasons, knowing it will never pass. He introduced it to 1) play to his race-baiting base by saying that there aren't enough rich white guys serving and 2) because the "d" word makes the media go nuts and he's trying to drive Bush's approval rating down.
     
  5. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    sounds plausible
     
  6. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I can't believe some elected officials hate America as much as they do. :(
     
  7. theHawk
    Online

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,853
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,739
    It won't pass this time. But down the line, when Dems have the White House and more of the Senate, you don't think they will pass such as measure? They will use the same excuse he is using now, that not enough "rich white people" are effected by wars. All they need to do is insert a clause that protects "poor" people from it and it will be geared to target whites and the liberals will gleefully pass it. Do you honestly believe that if and when Israel is under full attack from its many enemies the Dems in power won't send our military to aid our "unwaivering ally" that is a "model for democracy" in the middle east? The Dems know such a war would be highly unpopular and they'll need to pass a draft meaure before such a situation happens.

    Rangel has demonstrated his and his party's intentions for the future. You should not think of such proposed legislation in terms of current geopolitical situations, but of worst case scenarios and how the law would be used.
     

Share This Page