posted
He was playing politics again. He probably knew that it had no chance of passing, so it would be a way of bringing the issue to the public in a way they would never miss.
posted
This is somewhat old news. This came about as early as last year when Democrats were making a political statement by saying "Okay, you support this war so now send YOUR kids to fight it." It was never intended to pass. Kind of like the Flag Burning Amendment that gets dusted off every election cycle. Allows people the opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag without the bother of actually draping it around one's shoulders.
The other popular one brought before Congress recently was the proposed amendment that would withdraw the requirement of a president to be a natural born US citizen. It allowed for 20 years citizenship which would, coincidently of course, allow Ahnold the opportunity to become Terminator in Chief in 2008.
posted
Rangel has said to everyone who has given him a microphone, for the last six months at least, that he put the bill up in order for Senators to take into consideration, and to submit for public discourse, the gap between the class of the people who fight in the war and the class of the people who authorize a war. He never meant for the bill to pass, but he did mean for people to speak about such issues on a national level.
He has made this point consistently on numerous occasions.
The idea of shared sacrifice is not a waste of time, especially considering that there are people who support this war yet have the audacity to be offended when we have to raise taxes to pay for it.
quote:Would Congress and the American public be so eager to wage war if everyone's son and daughter might be called to fight?
Charles Rangel, the veteran Democratic Congressman from New York, doesn't think so. Complaining that the military's all-volunteer force has left the risks of combat largely to minorities and the poor, who are more likely to join the military for a better job, Rangel has joined with South Carolina Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings to introduce a bill that would reinstate the draft, which ended 30 years ago.
"We're going through a period of what I call patriotism lite," says Rangel, a decorated Korean War vet. "Put a flag on your SUV, but when it comes to making a sacrifice, you hold the coat while someone else does the fighting."
....
Blacks make up 21% of the enlisted military force, compared with 12% in the general population. But these recruits "tend to be concentrated in administrative and support jobs, not combat jobs," says a Pentagon report released after Rangel introduced his bill last month.
An earlier Defense Department report acknowledges that new recruits come "primarily" from middle-and lower-income families.
Says Rangel: "All Americans should be prepared to share the sacrifices of war"--even affluent ones.
I do not believe for a second that Bush is in favor of the draft.
The current system ensure that the rich and the powerful never have to worry about sending their kids to war. Of course, the rich and the powerful are able to keep their kids out of Vietnam, but under the current system, they don't even have to bother dodging the draft.
We should get back to more important things like putting anti-gay marriage amendments into the constitution.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And really, isn't this going to become an issue? I mean, if Bush wins on 11/2, how will he fight his style of war on terrorism when we will lack the troops to do it? What if even one more despot needs removing? We are having to call back men and women who have done their time and got out. Not a draft, but definitely taking those that are probably not willing to go back to war (we had a local friend go and he wasn't too excited about it...but I am sure there are others who are fine with it).
Seriously, does Bush think people are going to be lining up to invade Iran? Sit post in Iraq or Afghanistan? Invade Pakistan? N. Korea? Some African nation that hates us?
So no, it isn't a "waste of time" it is simply bringing up an important resource issue that hasn't been answered by this president who seems to think it will all be better when free elections hit Iraq in January. We can hope they go as swimmingly as those in Afghanistan (oh wait...).
I agree with RRR...let's get back to other more important issues like Flag Burning, too.
posted
I believe if the American people were confronted with the choice between implementing a draft or abandoning Iraq, they would pick the latter, regardless of which president is in charge.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we know Kerry isn't going to get any more troops committed to Iraq...so does that mean he's going to draft as soon as elected?
Because he says we don't have enough troops there and since not one country is even offering to add to the amount (besides those that have under Bush), what is he going to do?
See Bush's plan is to get the Iraqi's trained so that THEY are the soldiers in charge. Like just happened in Samarra. Then as they are trained and deployed, as well as the Police, you can scale back your American presence.
No draft in Bush's plan.
According to you then, Kerry's plan is a draft since he doesn't include the Iraqi troops in his plan, but more foreign troops, which aren't going to come, so I guess it's an immediate draft if Kerry gets elected.
posted
Wait a minute - you have to apply that doctrine to adam's post as well if you're going to apply it to CStroman's. Both are unsupported predictions about what their political opponent would do that pretty much fly in the face of all reason.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
