Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-19T174004Z_01_N19349552_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-DRAFT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22" target="_blank">http://today.reuters.com/news/ articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-19T174004Z_01_N19349552_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-DRAFT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22</a> >>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. Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.<<
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think the era of voluntary service has run its course. If the American population finds the notion of a draft unsettling, then I would suggest that we don't need to be engaged in military conflicts in Iraq or elsewhere. Rep Rangel is right on target. I suspect that anyone who is unnerved by this suggestion, is exactly the kind of person who feels like their life isn't worth sacrificing for the nation's national security -- but is more than willing to let someone from a lesser class of society sacrifice their life.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I agree that the return of the draft would be a good thing. As I've mentioned in posts before, I also would not allow college deferments. It is way too easy for our country to become involved in these overseas adventures when the ruling class knows that their children will not be sacrificed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We needed enough troops in Iraq to prevent Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria from swarming in after we took out Saddam Hussein's government. We won't have that problem if we need to take out the government of Iran or North Korea. If it comes to it, we can utilize the model we used in Afghanistan to take down Iran or North Korea. We simply don't need a draft.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ You obviously have no clue about the capabilities of Iran or North Korea, or the requirements to defeat those threats.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Bite me.<< Nice. I think Beaumandy is spending the weekend at Doug's, and Doug left his computer signed on to LP.
Originally Posted By Mr X Where is Beau these days anyway? Did he get banned? By the way, K2M, lucky you live near Canada. When you get that nasty draft card, you won't have far to run. Oh, wait. You're old. Like me. Lucky us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If it comes to it, we can utilize the model we used in Afghanistan to take down Iran or North Korea.> You mean, we can partner with the guerilla groups that are already established and fighting the government in those countries... oh wait. You mean we can leave before the job is done and let the people we deposed control as much or more of the country than the government that ostensibly replaced them? Come on. Those are very different countries. I think the "bite me" comment was a reflection that you knew it was a ridiculous comment as soon as you said it, and you got called on it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Bite me.>> You can always count on conservatives to provide pithy intelligent commentary.
Originally Posted By ecdc Actually, it's nice to see some emotion in Douglas for a change. He's the lone voice these days - lets cut him some slack. But he's still wrong I'd much rather see a draft to scare the higher classes than to prepare for war, but it is at times a necessity.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Where is Beau these days anyway? Did he get banned?>> I think he enlisted in the National Guard.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You obviously have no clue about the capabilities of Iran or North Korea, or the requirements to defeat those threats.> Why don't you enlighten me?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Let's just compare them to Iraq -- which had no capable army, navy, or air force. It required 5 carrier strike groups to mount the opening offensive in that campaign. Do you know how difficult it was to find 5 carriers that were capable of sailing into that battlespace simultaneously -- it was a gargantuan undertaking! All the stars and planets had to align to make that happen correctly. Consider that Iran and North Korea both have capable armies, navies, air forces, submarine services, cruise missiles, and they'll throw in a capable mine warfare force to boot. It takes a lot of resources to fend off these threats -- even if we are ultimately superior. And considering that we've got the bulk of our forces stuck in the Iraq quagmire, it would be awfully darn difficult to scrape the bottom of our readiness barrel to mount an offensive somewhere else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh None of that has anything to do with what my point was, that we would not need a large occupying army against either North Korea or Iran. Also, the number of troops we have in Iraq are only about 10% of our total military, hardly the bulk of it. And, we're years from moving against Iran or North Korea in the manner you suggest. By the time we do, our profile in Iraq will be greatly reduced.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Hopefully, our profile in Iraq will be greatly reduced because we're going to be pulling out there soon. Otherwise, expect our profile there to be high for quite some time. Heck, we've still got troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan! And to think those wars were done 50 years ago! And for what it's worth, we have a lot more than 10% of our operating forces in Iraq right now. You have to understand that most people in uniform aren't in roles that get deployed to combat zones. We have lots of support personnel here in the states who never deploy and aren't available to carry a gun or fill a security role. Heck, the Navy has 15,000 sailors on the ground in Iraq right now to augment the army's security forces, since they have run short on people to deploy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You have to understand that most people in uniform aren't in roles that get deployed to combat zones.> I understand that. My points stand.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Sounds like the Donald Rumsfeld philosophy on troop deployment. We all know how successful that has been.
