[QUOTE=rjung]
I heard him on the radio say that the whole point was to jump-start discussion about military recruitment for the war, more than anything else. It’s not so much as he really wants a draft as much as it’s a hook to start asking “Just where are we getting all these conscripts from?”
[/QUOTE]
But it didn’t do that very well the first time around, because people got hysterical over the prospect of a draft. He brings it up again, and the same thing happens. An intelligent, non-attention-whoring person would be trying to find some other way to make his point, since this way doesn’t seem to be working too well.
OK, I won’t tell you that. But since I don’t think they are, I don’t know why I would. Which brings us back to the whole “peanut throwing righties” argument you made. I guess that must include **SteveMB **and Marley23, too. You know, there’s nothing wrong with admitting you exagerated or made a mistake. People with think better of you, not worse.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
He wants to distribute the burden of serving in foreign wars - on other people. If he thinks the military needs more people, he should volunteer, or get people to join.
[/quote]
Again, you are simply being illogical: why can’t you see that? The point of a draft is that, at least theoretically, everyone has an equal chance of being called up. Encouraging specific people to join is the OPPOSITE of that.
And again, as has been pointed out, Rangel DID serve.
That may well be what he’s doing. But that doesn’t magically make illogic logical.
I’m simply pointing out that there is a lot of reason to think you are flat out wrong when you assert that there are enough troops. I don’t know what Rangel "really believes, but again, that doesn’t matter to this point.
No, it dishonest whether you believe in his motives or not.
I’m not a fan of the draft, and I’m not a fan of Rangel. That still doesn’t justify sloppy or bizarre arguments.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Again, you are simply being illogical: why can’t you see that?
[/quote]
Because I’m not being illogical. That’s just something you say rather than try to understand something with which you disagree.
But the point of Rangel’s push for a new draft is not fairness, and his previous comments about how minorities are unfairly bearing the burden blah blah is wrong.
Rangel isn’t pushing for a draft to help anyone, least of all the military. He is, essentially, trolling - pushing something, not because it is a good idea, but in order to create trouble.
Which demonstrates that you aren’t really reading what I post, so it might not be a good idea for you to comment on them.
Unless you can post where I asserted that there are enough troops in Iraq. Here’s a hint - no, you can’t.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Rangel isn’t pushing for a draft to help anyone, least of all the military. He is, essentially, trolling - pushing something, not because it is a good idea, but in order to create trouble.
[/QUOTE]
Really, the party needs to lean on him. He’s going to be one of the people running Congress; he needs to act like a grownup instead of a two-year-old on a sugar rush.
I assume by “lean on him” you mean “put pressure on him not to be an asshole”.
Am I the only one getting a sort of ‘Zoe Baird/early days of the Clinton administration when things started falling apart three days after the rush of the election’ vibe here?
Pelosi can’t get her pick as assistant, Murtha’s ethics problems bring him down, Rangel is still mouthing off, Jefferson is still in the running for election with 90K in bribe money in his freezer, Reid is paying off the hired help with campaign funds after Pelosi makes noise about “draining the swamp” and a “culture of corruption”, and the new Congress isn’t even started.
Maybe once the Dems get a chance to start introducing legislation it will look better for them. Maybe.
Yeah but Bush has a hunch on this one, he can’t tell us the source of his hunch (it would compromise national security) but he’s got a feeling about this one and he’d hate to be proven right by a mushroom cloud rising over the ashes of an American city (or a suburban soccer field for that matter). Its probably better to kill anyone that could possibly pose a threat to us at some point in time.
As a former marine vietnam veteran i can honestly say that enlisting in the marines really gave me a different outlook on life the world and our country. It made me and all my friends grow up. Alot of people here are against the draft. How many here have served in wartime? The answer probably not many so don!t talk about war if you never been there, you may think you know the answer but you really don!t no. If the young americans refuse to fight for this country who is going to fight for us? Maybe as lazy americans we can sub the military out like we do with other menial jobs such as day laborers, fast food workers, housekeepers etc. or on the next attack maybe we should just surrender!!!
[QUOTE=John Mace]
OK, I won’t tell you that. But since I don’t think they are, I don’t know why I would. Which brings us back to the whole “peanut throwing righties” argument you made. I guess that must include **SteveMB **and Marley23, too. You know, there’s nothing wrong with admitting you exagerated or made a mistake. People with think better of you, not worse.
[/QUOTE]
Simply untrue. If you admit you made a mistake, what people on the SDMB do is note your post where you made the admission and remind you of it every time you post on a related topic. They may think better of you, but that doesn’t prevent them from using the rhetorical ammunition you have provided.
[QUOTE=johnny M]
As a former marine vietnam veteran i can honestly say that enlisting in the marines really gave me a different outlook on life the world and our country. It made me and all my friends grow up. Alot of people here are against the draft. How many here have served in wartime? The answer probably not many so don!t talk about war if you never been there, you may think you know the answer but you really don!t no. If the young americans refuse to fight for this country who is going to fight for us? Maybe as lazy americans we can sub the military out like we do with other menial jobs such as day laborers, fast food workers, housekeepers etc. or on the next attack maybe we should just surrender!!!
[/QUOTE]
Your notion that people who haven’t served in war aren’t entitled to an opinion on the subject is as self-serving as the notion some economic conservatives have that if you aren’t an economist or a business tycoon, you aren’t entitled to an opinion our economic system. In both cases, people are powerfully affected and hence entitled to an opinion. For example, many women lose their sons and daughters in war – are they not entitled to an opinion? After all, they haven’t served a day’s time in the military.
[QUOTE=johnny M]
Alot of people here are against the draft. How many here have served in wartime? The answer probably not many so don!t talk about war if you never been there, you may think you know the answer but you really don!t no.
[/quote]
‘You must have been drafted in order to talk about the draft?’ I don’t think so.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Hmmmm. Senators don’t count, right? So Ted “Tube Truck” Stevens doesn’t count? Katherine Harris is gone. Foley’s gone. Yeah, a whole bunch of the really brain dead dumfuks have vanished lately.
Look, Charlie’s making a point. I’m not that crazy about the way he’s doing it, but no real harm is being done, so whats the BHAD? You don’t like his point, and I take it, don’t much like him, but that doesn’t make him stupid. Not compared to some of the other brain wipes that abound.
[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? Ted Stevens is still a Senator and Katherine Harris never was.
[QUOTE=Apos]
That depends on what you mean by “necessary.” There are a heck of a lot of people who insisted that we needed more troops to successfully stabilize Iraq back when we started, and clearly many right now. The current McCain/administration strategy is basically to send around 20,000 more troops: a drop in the bucket in terms of the force many generals were talking about… and yet whatisname general says it isn’t possible: we don’t reasonably have that many troops to send over there in reality. It’s looking now more like they are going to have to play some kooky accounting games to even make it look like we’re sending a sizeable force.
[/QUOTE]
General Abizaid has said we do not have a serious need for more American troops in Iraq. In response to this Senator McCain asked him if he is advocating the status quo, which is something the American people view as unacceptable. Abizaid said that he was not advocating the status quo, that he was advocating a greater focus on training and equipping the Iraqi military.
Ultimately when pressed Abizaid said that 20,000 troops sent to Baghdad to assist in stability could be useful short-term, but ultimately the issue is not one of needing more American troops but of training and equipping more Iraqi ones.
But what does he know, he’s just the most senior military officer in the theater.
I posted earlier but your missing my point. Everyone has opinion and thats what makes this country so great is we can discuss things but my point was " unless you have served in a war zone you cannot imagine the experience what we war veterans went through and never will". But my question still is who is going to defend this country if the young refuse? Oh forgot to tell you I enlisted.
[QUOTE=johnny M]
I posted earlier but your missing my point. Everyone has opinion and thats what makes this country so great is we can discuss things but my point was " unless you have served in a war zone you cannot imagine the experience what we war veterans went through and never will". But my question still is who is going to defend this country if the young refuse? Oh forgot to tell you I enlisted.
[/QUOTE]
The young are not refusing. If we have a real WWII like threat, we can reinstitute the draft-- we still require all males to register with the Selective Service when they reach draft age, so it’s not like we have to make the decsion about the draft once and for all times. Many of us, if not most of us, see the threat of terrorism, either Islamic or otherwise, as not something the military is going to solve. If we have a need to involve the military, it’s primarily the use of small, tactical units of Special Ops guys-- not big, rolling militaries that fought yesterday’s battles.
[QUOTE=Mr. Duality]
…With one more regional conflict there will a draft will be unavoidable. North Korea or China could easily provide the reason.
[/QUOTE]
Doubtful. We’re ulikely to go to war with North Korea without Chinese and South Korean support and both countries would provide troops if for no other reason than to have a say in occupation policy. An all out war between the US and China is unlikely and if it did occur would almost certainly go nuclear. It’d take 6-12 months for a draft to increase the size of the Army. By which time the Sino-American war would be over and both sides would divert all their resources into rebuilding.