gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

...with your picket signs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/...itics_draft_dc

A DRAFT? LORD NO!

Mr. Wiggles

iTrader: (12)

yeah, my pops just told me about this..it's irony, really

spedmunki

this is ridiculous

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Draft? No thanks.

This isn't the first time Rangel has suggested this. His intentions are not to win this war, but to make it to where everyone has to serve, including those that are fortune to not have to serve for financial reasons. In 2003 I remember reading that only 30% of the military consisted of minorities. There's always the glamorous lifestyle of crime for minorities, right? Ridiculous. You'd need to draft more people just act as a QRF for area universities and cities in protest.

lethalpsi

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006L.shtml

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Funny how the media works. Now that the Dems are taking over the spotlight is on them more than the Republicans. This was news for about 12-24hrs in 2003 when Rangel first purposed this idea. Now it's on every media outlet and some headlines make it seem like most Democrats want this.

Tread lightly Dems. You'll be fired by the people just as easily as the Republicans if stuff like this continues. It’s a good thing Pelosi got ***** slapped when she did...

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Sounds like a scare tactic to me, or maybe they just want a more diverse military so the "pinko types" would be forced to serve and more prone to criticize policy and administration. I'd say the military overally is is fairly right leaning.

He said in a soundbite, "I don't see how you can support the war and not support a draft."

Wasn't Charlie Rangal one of the ones in 2004 that said there would be a draft if Bush was reelected?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

If so, then he's pro-Bush apparently...

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

According to Lethal's article, it is a scare tactic but aimed towards the administration. Like it would add extra responsibility to starting a war.

Of course, this draft would presumably have a larger net that wouldn't allow the 'haves' to slide towards the Air Force NG or to 'buy' themselves jobs behind desks. Probably not.

lethalpsi

Would the consequences of this draft proposal be any different if it were proposed by a Republican?

Maybe.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I don't even think party is at issue whatsoever. It's nothing more than political posturing.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Agreed. Rangel knows there's a snowball's chance of creating a draft; what he suggests is that congress wouldn't authorize extended overseas deployments and military actions if the Congress was sending its own children off to those wars. Which is horse****. There are currently 16 million or so young men in the US who would qualify for the draft as it is being proposed, and maybe a few dozen of them are closely related to members of Congress. None of them would go to war (well, none that wouldn't be likely to go anyway.).

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I don't agree with Charlie Rangel on, well, I don't think anything up to this point, but he got some respect with this maneuver.