Also, Soldiers Are Morons.
Published on January 12, 2007 By greywar In Politics

     Remember all the pre-2004/2006 election hype about how the Republicans would be re-instating the draft if they were re-elected? Well we just passed the 2006 elections and sure enough there is a bill being introduced to re-instate the draft... but not by Republicans. This is Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) 3rd attempt to re-instate the draft actually:

 From Newsday.com and the AP -

"Rep. Charles Rangel, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war, on Thursday called for a new military draft, saying everyone between 18 and 42 should be asked to share the burden of wartime responsibilities. "

       Mr. Rangel is voicing the opions of many of his extreme left-wing supporters with this and I do not fault him for that. The far-left are the prime movers in the Democratic party right now and as such the people they helped elect should probably listen to their constituency.  

      Unfortunately for Mr. Rangel most of the Democratic party would like to leave this part of their supporters behind and unheard after the served their purposes during the election cycle and even Mr. Rangel himself has a history of using these draft bills as stalking horses for other issues in the past:

 

"Democratic leadership has shown no interest in bringing the bill to a vote, despite its vocal objections to the 21,500-troop increase announced Wednesday night by President Bush. Even Rangel once voted against the bill." (Even though he co-authored it- GW)

     Mr. Rangel also has some very interesting attitudes about U.S. soldiers' level of intelligence and understanding:

"Rangel, chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways & Means Committee, said he was "so pained" by the president's remarks about the troops, "some of whom may lose their lives or their limbs and not have the slightest clue as to what the president of the United States was talking about." (Ostensibly because soldiers are uneducated morons ala John Kerry's impression - GW)

 

     It just never ends.

 


 

Site Meter "
Comments (Page 1)
on Jan 12, 2007
Charlie Wrangle seems to be the only one interested in bringing back the draft, an army of draft dodgers, unsupportable military actions, as well as a lesser then professional force then we already have today.

He's pathetic.
on Jan 12, 2007
I knew it was you before I moused-over the link. It really appals me to see Rangel trying this again.
on Jan 12, 2007
No draft. Blech.

Ostensibly because soldiers are uneducated morons ala John Kerry's impression


This just keeps getting old. My college GPA was higher than Kerry's. It's not politically correct to call us wrong or evil anymore for fighting the war, so now we're subservient, uneducated ignoramuses, entrapped by the powers of our wicked master. The condescension is killing me, couldn't people just go back to spitting in our face and calling us baby-killers?

I did however feel a new twinge of betrayal when they joked about the stupidity of soldiers on Family Guy..............arrgh. Where else can I find such a combination of musical theatre and toilet bowl humor?
on Jan 12, 2007

The condescension is killing me, couldn't people just go back to spitting in our face and calling us baby-killers?

Indeed, at least that put the hate right out there for all to see...

on Jan 12, 2007
James Taranto has been running letters from GIs after Kerry's and Rangel's "stupid" comments.  WHile I knew that the average soldier was not an idiot (that was mcNamarras idiocy to try to make them so), I was very impressed with some of the credentials of those writing to Taranto.  Indeed, I have seen enough GIs posting on this site to know that "stupid" and "soldier" do not belong in the same sentence (however stupid and congress is another issue).
on Jan 12, 2007
Amen Doc! Congress and stupid in the same sentence is practically a necessity.
on Jan 13, 2007
Well I do believe that he first suggested that some in congress want a draft, and that there is national support for it, and then it was that there is a disproportionate percentage of blacks in the army and being killed in Iraq, and now he is the one calling for the draft. While a great number of congress persons as well as the vast majority of political opinion is for a reduction in the commitment rather then an expansion of an army and armed forces presence in Iraq.

A draft would greatly increase our ability to field troops, yet if the goal was to be occupiers that might be a good way of achieving it. The goals have been stability and security, then economic development, and allowing a peace loving nation to grow from a good base where people have jobs and occupations rather then unrest and destruction all around them.

The security goal hasn't been achieved for the place it needs to be most secure, i.e. the capital. To suggest a draft, would assist in this goal or any other military goal is to not understand what is needed, and that is a re-delineation of the goals. A new goal that is realistic. The way of life in Iraq depends largely on what the Iraq people are willing to take up arms and carve out of chaos for themselves, with our help of course, but helping to fight the good fight and fighting the entire fight are two different things.

In the last few months progress has been made in training additional troops in the Iraqi guard and army, so if anything the commitment of U.S. troops should only need to be decreasing not increasing.

The President of the United States is at odds with just about everybody in thinking that we need to increase our commitment, in the past two years, a major shift in everybody below him was executed during the process of building a new cabinet, lately it has been restructuring the military command in Iraq, and civilian leadership over and over in Iraq.

This isn't the 51st state folks, The president can do all he wants, and wish all he wants, what the reality is Iraqis are going to have to stand up for their neighborhoods or die in submission of a policy of violence.

We have yet to see significant progress in the reduction of violence in the last 3 months, 3 months before that no reduction either. Reducing the number of troops would have three benefits, if their tactical deployments were just reduced, not changed...

-reducing the potential number of U.S. troop casualties
-allowing a re-deployment into Iraq if the situation became vastly worse then it is (hard to image)
-truly giving the reigns to the Iraqis and forcing them to make their own sacrifices and choices.

Its a long and bloody struggle either way. The country may fall apart into two or three separatist states anyway even with our help. What matters is we do not have a draft or a huge army, a very powerful one, and an over-deployed one, we also have other interests in the world potentially needing attention. China, North Korea, and Iran for starters.
on Jan 13, 2007
I hope if they reinstate the draft they up the max age to 42. I'd hate to miss out on my chance to wow the draft board with the aforementioned performance of a few bars of "Alice's Restaurant". LOL.

But seriously, I would be DQ'ed pretty quickly. About the only service I could offer today's military are my computer skills, and there are thousands out there better than I at it.
on Jan 14, 2007
I'm sure they could find a job for me, I'd love to get behind an M4, or sit in an F-22 and shoot down some Mig's if I could just see far enough.
on Jan 14, 2007
I imagine that carrying a loaded pistol while on staff duty would be fun. (Not)
It would be needed due to the influx of criminals who would end up in the military.
We've seen it before, and it's not pretty, and this was in the early days of the All volunteer military.
on Jan 14, 2007
The issue may not be WANT but NEED. If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000, it remains to be scene if that can be accomplished under an ALL Volunteer force.
on Jan 14, 2007
The issue may not be WANT but NEED. If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000, it remains to be scene if that can be accomplished under an ALL Volunteer force.


Some American people believe in defending it more than you think they do Col. This is one of this things that you can only have an opinion on and not be able to prove it will be how you put it.
on Jan 14, 2007

Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago. 

There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics. 

on Jan 14, 2007
Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago.
There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics.


ID,

Yes, but scare tactics with Congress' new darling (Rangel) drumming up the hype.
on Jan 15, 2007
"If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000"

Congress will pull the funding out from under the president, regardless of the political fallout, and in fact, the democrats will actually benefit from doing that. The troops won't but then it comes time for President Bush to make "hard decisions" instead of the Iraqi's. Iraq should be fighting this war anyway. If they want the damn freedom they have to die trying to get it, or make the sacrifices to get it.

"Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago.
There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics."

I agree, the only situation you could expect to see a draft, is nuclear war, or another state sponsored war, China for example, rather then the occasional terrorism action. Something that threatens mainland United States with invasion is probably the only one that will happen in the next 25-50 years.
Meta
Views
» 1533
Comments
» 19
Category
Sponsored Links