Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Senior Democrat renews call for military draft

  1. Nov 19, 2006 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't ever want to see another draft in this country.

    "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.

    He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2006 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Good luck with that, Chairman Moron. May your career be short and moot.

    - Warren
     
  4. Nov 19, 2006 #3
    Seconded. ten character minimum
     
  5. Nov 19, 2006 #4
    Note what I was predicting in my other thread - the Democratic congress has no clear strategy for addressing Iraq. We're getting completely contradictory statements, from

    to

    http://wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=32220&template=breakout_local.html

    So which is it? Rapid total withdrawal? Or rapid troop increase with universal draft? It's impressive - they haven't even taken office yet, and the Democratic majority has already come up with two proposals that are even worse then the current Rumsfeld strategy. :eek:
     
  6. Nov 19, 2006 #5

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Because the republicans NEVER had a contradictory statement from two members of their party when they were discussing issues like immigration, and whether to implement a guest worker or a mass deportation program :roll:

    I think it's clear that a supermajority of the democrats do not favor a draft
     
  7. Nov 19, 2006 #6
    this legislation comes up like once a year, its always posturing, they never expect it to actually pass - more like a, hey if you want to fight wars so badly do it yourself, kind of a message
     
  8. Nov 19, 2006 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Rangel said (and has said before) that Congress would not have approved the invasion of Iraq if their own sons and daughters were to be put at risk. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a draft reinstated and he knows that. The rank and file military contains disproportionate percentages of ethnic minorities and the poor, and he is taking the soapbox to point that out.

    I was subject to the draft, and although I was dead-set against the Vietnam War, I would have reported for induction, so that some other kid wouldn't have to. I would have requested CO status, but would not have resisted deployment to Vietnam. I would have asked to be given training as a medic or medevac pilot so at least I would have a chance to save some lives instead of taking them. Quayle and W didn't share my quandry - there was no chance of them going into combat. Sons of the wealthy have options. I lucked out - the military made their quota just 3 or 4 birthdays before mine (lottery system).

    Currently, there are a lot of active-duty personnel that are being forced to stay in the service after their enlistment period has expired and there are a lot of guardsmen facing additional tours in Iraq. Our military is stretched, and if the W's war cannot be conducted without unduly penalizing our active duty troops and guard, then it is time to have another debate about the draft. It is particularly hard on self-employed National Guard personnel. When they get back from Iraq, they may no longer have a business, or even a home. These people volunteered for the National Guard because the guard is supposed to be deployed state-side to help cope with urgent needs and they were willing to do their part. Deploying them to Iraq for a year or longer is a misuse of the guard, and that should be avoided by fielding a larger standing army or by refusing to get involved in "wars" that have no defensive purpose.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2006
  9. Nov 19, 2006 #8

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    If they could sell the cause, wouldn't more join?
     
  10. Nov 19, 2006 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes. My dad quit high school early to join the Airborne because he thought that the war in Europe was necessary and just. I would have volunteered for service if I thought the Vietnam War was just. It was not and I did not.

    That war could have been avoided if the US had kept its promises. When the Japanese invaded SE Asia, Ho Chi Minh told the US intelligence personnel that he would help drive out the Japanese and hinder them in any way possible if in return, the US refused to turn the country back over to the French after the war. The US accepted his help then reneged on the deal and turned control of French Indo-China back to the French. The Vietnam war was fought to protect business interests and imperialism, NOT to prevent the spread of communism and foster democracy.
     
  11. Nov 19, 2006 #10

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Nerp, see, "Federal Mission" at http://www.arng.army.mil/default.aspx .

    OSS went into SE Asia in '45 (near war's end, not beginning), seeking assistance from local resistance groups in recovering downed fliers. They were unsuccessful in establishing any useful connections.
     
  12. Nov 20, 2006 #11

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The American Liaison Personnel were in-country a long time before the OSS showed up. You may want to search on CBI. These guys were dealing with indigenous forces well before the Japanese gained the ascendancy in the region.
     
  13. Nov 20, 2006 #12

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Voluteers then?

    Perhaps a mandatory military service of 1 or 2 years for everyone would be fair. Several countries have such policies.
     
  14. Nov 20, 2006 #13
    The whole point of a military draft is that there's an invasion and Nazis or Soviets are murdering everyone in their path - everyone and the children take up guns and fight. It's the choice of last resort precisely because it forces citizens to be killed, and worse - to kill, in gross violation of their inherent rights. It is obsolete in the first world, a relic of a pre-nuclear past.

    There are few things which disgust me more then the arrogance of one man to presume controlling the life of another - who should fight, who should die, how s/he lives his life. It is the communist model, and it is a failed model, one that violates the basic self-determination of the free citizen. Those countries with enforced terms of public service - they're halfway on the road to communism; they don't let free citizens in free markets determine where they will work and live, no, let some bureaucrat with a roulette wheel decide for them. Myself, I live in a country founded on freedom and liberty - and I'll die before I'll slave away for socialist planners.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2006
  15. Nov 20, 2006 #14
    Although it is honorable to serve in the defense of one's country, the military lifestyle is not for everyone. Forcing a person to join an organization in which he/she does not belong is inherently bad for both the person and the organization.
     
  16. Nov 21, 2006 #15
    what would be "fair" is if wars were fought exclusively for defense, until then no justification can be made to join the military in my view
     
  17. Nov 21, 2006 #16
    you can just as easily slave away for capitalist planners :rolleyes: :confused: :confused:
     
  18. Nov 21, 2006 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Bush's use of the guard has clearly been inappropriate since his primary job is the defense of this nation, and not Iraqi freedom. Clearly, as Katrina showed all too well, this country was left venerable during what Bush describes as a time of a great peril [due to the threat of terrorism].

    The only reason that we don't already have a draft is that this would have precluded support for the war. Given an operation of this size, is it any wonder that this was fought with insufficient numbers of troops? Is it any wonder that we now have a disaster on our hands? As time has shown, it was lunacy to engage in an operation of this size and duration with a "lean and mean" army. This also violated a basic principle of war: Use overwhelming force.

    The fact is that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, but we did, and now we are subject to the pottery rule: We broke it so we own it.

    The way that I see it, we will be lucky if a draft can be avoided. First of all, Bush might have already started WWIII. If this is the case then clearly we will be seeing a draft. If we are talking about an open ended commitment of our troops in order to prevent a regional war, then a draft could be unavoidable as well. It depends on how many troops are needed. As it stands now, we are allegedly squeaking by while effectively acting as observers to a low level civil war. The situation seems to be continually worsening, and if any degree of control is to be maintained, we may end up sending more and more troops as conditions worsen. According to the testimony given Congress this week, we are near the limit of our ability to increase our presence with an all volunteer force.

    On the other hand, we might manage to withdraw from Iraq or significantly reduce our presence without the entire region destabilizing, but at this point no one sees how this can happen.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
  19. Nov 21, 2006 #18
    You mean the capitalist party leader, whose agents forbid me from pursuing any career outside of physics research (in the vested, planned interests of the Peoples' Capitalist State)? :confused:
     
  20. Nov 21, 2006 #19

    :rofl: Someones been watching too much news lately. I can smell a good 2-3 sound bites in what you wrote. :rofl:

    You're mistaken, we should ivade Iran while were still there.
     
  21. Nov 21, 2006 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then your nose needs to be somewhere else.

    Your second statement makes no sense. What do you mean?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Senior Democrat renews call for military draft
  1. Republican or Democrat (Replies: 30)

  2. Vote Democrat! (Replies: 17)

  3. Democratic debate? (Replies: 2)

Loading...