NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

While I agree with rangel that policymakers would be a bit more careful about fighting wars if their children could be sent to fight with them, I don't think that would happen.

As wars of the past have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments still would not be doing the fighing and dying for this country. I really doubt that'll change much. We'd have to require mandatory service for all Americans of a certain age. While I don't like that idea, it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

While I agree with rangel that policymakers would be a bit more careful about fighting wars if their children could be sent to fight with them, I don't think that would happen.

As wars of the past have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments still would not be doing the fighing and dying for this country. I really doubt that'll change much. We'd have to require mandatory service for all Americans of a certain age. While I don't like that idea, it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)

I've heard this somewhere. But where?

They say all Americans will have to register for the draft...that is only half true. All males are (or should be) registered already. Yay for having a penis:(

Anyway, I'm against it. Decent logic behind it, but no. I'm against all drafts.

We'd have to require mandatory service for all Americans of a certain age. While I don't like that idea, it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)

Haha! The Battle of the Bulge...again.:D

This is a bad idea. Radical consequences should never be instituted in order to discourage certain actions. Just look at this quote from last week's Time Magazine:
As Bush 41 was preparing to invade Kuwait in 1990 and free that nation from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, Pentagon generals came up with what they thought was a clever scheme that might prevent the President from going to war. Gates was in the Oval Office when the generals brought in maps, charts and pointers and told Bush that Kuwait could be liberated only if he was willing to spend six months deploying half a million troops halfway round the globe. The reluctant generals were betting, Gates explained, that no U.S. President would agree to such a crazy and expensive adventure. But what made Gates smile when he told the story was the cool and determined way Bush responded to the uniforms' rush job. "Sounds right," said the old Navy pilot. "Do it." The generals left the Oval Office looking pale and drawn.

So... yeah. Never assume that some radical deterrent like a draft will discourage people from warmongering. They just might call your bluff...

My father is of the age that experienced the mandatory four years of service, he maintains that it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He says that he learned how to deal with unreasonable, tiresome people, to be responsible for his actions, to attend rigourously to detail and to work hard for little reward.

Hm... just thought I'd throw that in. I'd go, if drafted-- I'd be signing up in about two years anyway. Oh well.

[url]
it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)


would'nt it be easier to fight obesity by pummeling a few fat kids :)

would'nt it be easier to fight obesity by pummeling a few fat kids :)

Tazers. Sort of a ranged version of those ab-zapper machines. :)

Tazers. Sort of a ranged version of those ab-zapper machines. :)

ahh that explains why the cops tazered that kiwi's kid, he was a porker!

and they pepper sprayed the duaghter because she was annorexic, i wonder how many calories are in your average can of pepper spray??? :confused:

ahh that explains why the cops tazered that kiwi's kid, he was a porker!

Which is why of all the places the tazer dart could have gone, they hit him. Big target. :)

Haha! The Battle of the Bulge...again.:D

Oh hah hah hah. *is fat*

As for military service, I wouldn't qualify anyway. I tried seeking admission to the Airforce Academy once. They gave me a pretest, which included a complete physical, and told me my mild asthma prevented me from joining.

Which is fine with me now, since I was too moronic at the time to realize I'd have wound up straight in Iraq if I'd joined anyway.

Which is fine with me now, since I was too moronic at the time to realize I'd have wound up straight in Iraq if I'd joined anyway.

Yeah, but you would've been in the Chair Force and would've just sat in Balad, BIAP or Al Asad the whole time.

Oh hah hah hah. *is fat*

*produces a taser* This is for your own good... *aims*

I oppose the draft on every possible level, and I consider Charles Rangel to be a deeply immoral man for even suggesting it.

But this is the second thread on the subject, and I can see that for those who won't be affected by it, the general attitude is to shrug it off.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

While I agree with rangel that policymakers would be a bit more careful about fighting wars if their children could be sent to fight with them, I don't think that would happen.

As wars of the past have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments still would not be doing the fighing and dying for this country. I really doubt that'll change much. We'd have to require mandatory service for all Americans of a certain age. While I don't like that idea, it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)
It's funny that the premise Rangel uses to justify the draft is wrong. Instead of the deadbeats that Kerry predicted would join the all-volunteer Army,Navy,etc, it's the bright kids that join. A draft would just take us back to the bad old days of post Vietnam when gangs ran the barracks and morale sucked. Let's fix what's broke, not break what's working.

Its never going to happen. At this point. It won't. I assure you. :)

Kerry predicted would join the all-volunteer Army,Navy,etc

Look!

Is it a bird? No!

Is it a plane? No!

Is it a superhero? Not exactly!

It's Partisan Man! flying (or at least, claiming to fly) from place to place doing battle with fictional evils and slaying demons that exist... In his own mind. No one can save the world from a threat that isn't there as well as... Partisan Man!*

* Partisan Man and parts sold seperately. Warranty does not apply in certain states. Side affects of using Partisan Man may include dry mouth, insomnia, rectal bleeding, and selective blindness. Consult your doctor if you have a heart condition, or if you have ever experienced any contact with reality, as Partisan Man could be fatal to certain people.

Frustration with silly, partisan rhetoric aside, you're correct.

well, we all know John Mcain commited political suicide by screaming in the name of more soldiers, along with this rep.

well, we all know John Mcain commited political suicide by screaming in the name of more soldiers, along with this rep.

Rangel never needs to worry about being reelected, TBH. His district is a very liberal one, and he is very popular in it.

McCain... Well, we'll see. He can bounce back from anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

While I agree with rangel that policymakers would be a bit more careful about fighting wars if their children could be sent to fight with them, I don't think that would happen.

As wars of the past have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments still would not be doing the fighing and dying for this country. I really doubt that'll change much. We'd have to require mandatory service for all Americans of a certain age. While I don't like that idea, it does have it's benefits. Especially in fighting obesity. :)


As wars of the pas have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments...

Fucking bullshit.

That only applies to one war in which there was a draft, and that was Vietnam. And even then, it wasn't only rich kids who bought their way into college. You can't buy your way into a college, no matter how much money you have. During Vietnam, it was the spoiled middle class kids who got into college and used that as an exccuse to get deferments, letting the blacks and minorities from the lower classes and gehtto environments to do the fighting. Then those same middle class punks spit and threw blood on the blacks and lower class kids when they returned form the war.
During WWII and the Korean War, there were few if any deferments for people rich or otherwise.

And as for Myrmidonisia's claim that Instead of the deabeats that Kerry predicted would join the all volunteer Army, Navy, etc, it's the bright kids that join that's complete bullshit. The armed forces have lowered their standards for enlistment quite a bit, to the point where functional 'tards are now able to join.

Hardly the best and brightest, in fact far from it.

Rangel's brought this up before. He's just trying to put a little "class war" spin on foreign and defense policy. :rolleyes:

I feel that it was just the matter of time before the draft would be reinstated. However, I don't feel that it is completely fair to accuse the lawmakers of not having their children serve in Iraq when in fact, their are some which actually is still a pretty low percentage.

However, not figured in is the age of most of the lawmakers. Most are up there in age so if you figure in their grand kids, I am sure that that percentage would rise quite a bit.

Just my 2 cents.

As wars of the pas have shown for the most part, rich kids who can afford to have their way bought into college or otherwise avoid combat deployments...

Fucking bullshit.

That only applies to one war in which there was a draft, and that was Vietnam. And even then, it wasn't only rich kids who bought their way into college. You can't buy your way into a college, no matter how much money you have. During Vietnam, it was the spoiled middle class kids who got into college and used that as an exccuse to get deferments, letting the blacks and minorities from the lower classes and gehtto environments to do the fighting. Then those same middle class punks spit and threw blood on the blacks and lower class kids when they returned form the war.
During WWII and the Korean War, there were few if any deferments for people rich or otherwise.

And as for Myrmidonisia's claim that that's complete bullshit. The armed forces have lowered their standards for enlistment quite a bit, to the point where functional 'tards are now able to join.

Hardly the best and brightest, in fact far from it.

I like you. You're silly. :)

A draft? Sounds like jolly good fun, let me know how that turns out.

Apparently I'm too gay for an M16.

A draft? Sounds like jolly good fun, let me know how that turns out.

Apparently I'm too gay for an M16.

I'm too left-handed for one. The hot shell casings pop out and hit me in the face.

They don't make an M16 for south paws?

It's a well proven fact that - historically - having a draft or national service scheme prevents governments from engaging in costly overseas adventures.

For example, if britian and france hadn't had compulsory service during the 1950s, then they may well have gone and done something silly; like trying to invade egypt under the pretense of 'peace keeping'.

They don't make an M16 for south paws?

Nope.

It's a well proven fact that - historically - having a draft or national service scheme prevents governments from engaging in costly overseas adventures.

For example, if britian and france hadn't had compulsory service during the 1950s, then they may well have gone and done something silly; like trying to invade egypt under the pretense of 'peace keeping'.

Israel.

It's a well proven fact that - historically - having a draft or national service scheme prevents governments from engaging in costly overseas adventures.


Care to cite that research regarding that "fact," genius?

It's a well proven fact that - historically - having a draft or national service scheme prevents governments from engaging in costly overseas adventures.

For example, if britian and france hadn't had compulsory service during the 1950s, then they may well have gone and done something silly; like trying to invade egypt under the pretense of 'peace keeping'.

I was thinking about how the draft kept the United States out of Vietnam and Korea.
[One of these days, my dyslexia is going to win and United States is going to remain posted as Untied States.]

Care to cite that research regarding that "fact," genius?

It's obvious because operation musketeer never took place. And that was because of national service.

Khadgar They don't make M16s for Southpaws?

Nope.

They do, however, make a funky little thing called a 'brass deflector'. So the brass doesn't hit you in the face, and instead ends up, in defiance to the laws of physics, in your jacket collar. Happens to righties, too, however.

Really, they use the M4 now anyways for the most part. Don't know how that one works.

Oh, btw, Draft = Bad Idea (yea me for staying on point!!)

It's obvious because operation musketeer never took place. And that was because of national service.

Oh..."obvious"...okay. You fail at cause and effect by extrapolating to much.

As for military service, I wouldn't qualify anyway. I tried seeking admission to the Airforce Academy once. They gave me a pretest, which included a complete physical, and told me my mild asthma prevented me from joining.

Which is fine with me now, since I was too moronic at the time to realize I'd have wound up straight in Iraq if I'd joined anyway.

Same problem, different angle here. I'd have liked to have had a go, but my (rather more serious) asthma kept me out.

As for who's joining and the recruiting and retention rates (the later's much more important, BTW), that's all a function of how much the country's willing to pay out, as expressed by congress. At the moment, the US is paying disgustingly low, IMHO.

You know, I would love it if this actually passes, mainly because it would be political suicide for the whole Democratic Party, and I never seen a political suicide of a whole party before.

If I was to get drafted, I would hope I would get to join the Air Force and work around airplanes, but because of my physical problems they probably will turn me away. Ah well.

I think its time we all got married and pregnant to avoid draft.

It's kind of appalling that this draft stuff reappears as soon as Milton Friedman dies. Eliminating the draft was his proudest accomplishment.

Rangel's brought this up before. He's just trying to put a little "class war" spin on foreign and defense policy. :rolleyes:

The class war would be a little les disgusting if it wasn't for the fact that the kids who would be most effected by a draft would be poor black kids.

As for who's joining and the recruiting and retention rates (the later's much more important, BTW), that's all a function of how much the country's willing to pay out, as expressed by congress. At the moment, the US is paying disgustingly low, IMHO.

Well, yeah, if all you can do is grunt and point a gun where you CO tells you, you get shit pay. If you have any skills whatsoever the pay scale starts to go up. I know that I was offered a shocking signing bonus and an officer's commission when I took the ASVAB. Then again, I had a useful BA and scored in Category I. ;)

Well, yeah, if all you can do is grunt and point a gun where you CO tells you, you get shit pay. If you have any skills whatsoever the pay scale starts to go up. I know that I was offered a shocking signing bonus and an officer's commission when I took the ASVAB. Then again, I had a useful BA and scored in Category I. ;)

Yes, the military pays better for skilled people, but there's still a significant civilian-military pay gap that causes poor retention rates.

Care to cite that research regarding that "fact," genius?

Hay guys I can't understand extremely obvious sarcasm!

And as for Myrmidonisia's claim that that's complete bullshit. The armed forces have lowered their standards for enlistment quite a bit, to the point where functional 'tards are now able to join.

Hardly the best and brightest, in fact far from it.

Kinda funny that you'd mention that, considering that almost every potential enlistee who has less than a high school diploma (even a GED doesn't work) isn't allowed in. Functional 'tards? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm

Kinda funny that you'd mention that, considering that almost every potential enlistee who has less than a high school diploma (even a GED doesn't work) isn't allowed in. Functional 'tards? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm

Just to play devil's advocate, it's not like getting a high school diploma is difficult.

Just to play devil's advocate, it's not like getting a high school diploma is difficult.


Just to play JAG, I would point out that 98% of military recruits hold a HS diploma or GED, while 75% of the (U.S.) populace holds one.

But no, it's not all that difficult...

Yes, the military pays better for skilled people, but there's still a significant civilian-military pay gap that causes poor retention rates.

I don't know, maybe people with psych degrees are just an unusual class, but I couldn't find a civilian job that paid as much as the military offered me. The only reason I turned it down was the fact that I was getting married and the job would have been a guaranteed ticket to a sandy little corner of hell half a world from my wife.

It's a well proven fact that - historically - having a draft or national service scheme prevents governments from engaging in costly overseas adventures.

Points and laughs.

The costs for the Manhattan Project alone exceeded $5,000,000,000 and there sure as fuck was a draft while that AND WWII were going on and the US was certainly engaged in costly overseas adventures, while at the same time the US was propping up the Britsh exonomy, and after WWII was over the US managed to put out the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe at a cost in todays dollars of over $9,000,000,000,000.

Go peddle your lies somewhere else.