This is topic whoa!!!! in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/9492.html

Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Senior Democrat renews call for draft

Tell me that the Dems ain't trying to find a solution. This guy's got balls.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
solution, or stunt?

His real position is that we shouldn't be in Iraq. He's using this plan for publicity and pressure.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
wedge issue stunt, but poorly aimed.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.
And I don't see his support for the draft but opposition for the war as anything but disingenuous.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Hrm.
I'm not sure disingenuous is the right word.

But let me stake out my own position rather then someone else's:

If we want to accomplish anything positive in iraq, and I'm not sure thats possible no matter what we do, but the only way I see that we can accomplish anything positive, requires at least 3 times as many troops as we have there right now.

We can't support 3 times as many troops as we have in iraq right now, unless we abandon a lot of our interests in other places around the world. For example, we could clear our our korea garrison. But how long would it be til north korea invaded south korea if we did that? And then would we want to send troops or would we let the far east devolve?

So the answer would probably need to be to find 250,000 more combat personnel, and our recruiters aren't doing well enough to support that. We'd need to institute some kind of draft if we want to send another 200,000 plus troops to iraq within a year.

THe other opition is to start pulling out now. We can either sit there and keep doing what we are doing, which will cost us hundreds of billions and hundreds of soldiers lives, and not really accomplish much of anything that is of strategic benefit to the united states, start withdrawing and let iraqi's handle the situation themselves, or institute some form of draft.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
From the article:

quote:
The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The
Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

The ultimate irony of this was that the bill Rangel introduced was cited together with a bill re-upping Selective Service by a bunch of lying activists who swore that the Bush administration would reinstate the draft by July 2005 if reelected.

This is nothing new. The democrats didn't support him then and won't support him now.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I'm sure Iraq would go better with a bunch of resentful draftees policing Baghdad?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
THats an interesting use of the word "lie" dagonee. Do you KNOW that they knew bush wouldn't reinstate the draft?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I suspect the resentful part would be outweighed by the 250,000 of them. Thats more or less what we discovered in vietnam... draftees might not be as efficient, but they arent negative value, when compared to volunteers.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
THats an interesting use of the word "lie" dagonee. Do you KNOW that they knew bush wouldn't reinstate the draft?
I knew that they didn't know he would. I knew that the fliers on the subject contained numerous out-and-out inaccurate statements with citations to things that, when looked up, directly contradicted what they were saying about them. To me, that indicates a lie. Either the mistake is a lie because they knew what the citation actually said, or the citation was a lie, because it means they didn't actually cite it.

Beyond that, they spoke of "uncovering" Bush's "secret plan" and that it was already in the works. They didn't know that, there's no way they could have known it.

Beyond that, associating Rangel with a secret Bush plan was either a lie or an unbelievable expression of stupidity.

Some of the articles on the subject were something like "Does Bush intend to reinstate the draft?" That's not a lie.

"Bush intends to reinstate draft" without ever having heard any evidence of such intent is a lie. And the cited evidence wasn't evidence of intent.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I should let you know that that usage of the word lie is significantly more broad then the usage of the word lie that I have been told is against ornery rules. just so you know.

Not saying I entirely disagree with you. Saying that, if javelin wants to be a consistent moderator, he should be sending you an email that you aren't allowed to use lie like that on these boards, since ther are people posting here who used some of that reasoning.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
I would appreciate being left out of your feud with the moderators here. I like them, I don't know who they are. I also like javelin. I also like you in general, but the ongoing remarks on the subject are very unbecoming. If you're genuinely concerned for my not running afoul of the rules, you have my email address, or can give me a warning without mentioning javelin.

I'll give you an example of the citation. This is drawn from memory and is certainly inaccurate, but it captures the essential elements of what I witnessed:

"The new law calls for the local draft officials to begin notifying inductees on July 10, 2005. (P.L. 3141 Sec. 59)

P.L. 3141 Sec. 59 actually authorizes the appointment of the local officials who oversee Selective Service Registration and increases their salary while making no mention of induction.

That is a lie. The citation is saying "I have confirmed that the preceding sentence is supported by this reference." Either they know that it isn't supported - and hence the preceding sentence is a lie - or they haven't actually looked up the law - in which case the citation is a lie. There is a slim possibility that they found a bogus copy of P.L. 3141, but since the ones conducting the local campaign were law students, that cover doesn't work for them.

I've never seen anything like that here on this subject. If I had, I almost certainly would have registered a couple months sooner, because this topic really pissed me off right before the election.

Now, if someone describes a law and says "somewhere in this new law" and it turns out they are totally wrong, then that might be an error and, under the rules here, I can't call it a lie. But the actual citation? Claiming to have evidence that just doesn't exist? Those are lies by any definition.

To clarify - if the person who relied on the bogus copy of the law is entirely innocent, there's still someone who lied - the person who made the bogus copy. Hence, I know there's a liar in the chain of activism, even if the local person isn't that liar.

[ November 19, 2006, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I know they are lies by definition. So is what I got warned about calling a lie. Lie, as far as the mods are concerned, is a word that is not allowed on ornery, according to the emails I have from them.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
From what I've read, some of the major issues in Vietnam arose from draftees being used as piecemeal replacements for units that were already fielded.

If we change that policy a little bit, a draft could make a lot of sense. A required military term, served somewhere between the age of 18-25, would force a lot more of the population (that is more than the southern United States [Smile] to see what the military is all about.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I do not think that seeing what the military is all about would make this country a better place. I am fairly certain that requiring military service would make this a worse place. a large standing military is too tempting to people who make policy for the military.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"From what I've read, some of the major issues in Vietnam arose from draftees being used as piecemeal replacements for units that were already fielded."

Yeah, but they were't negatively productive. IE, having them was better then having noone.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
Everard,

You forgot the third option that I posted about a few months a go, which is to abandon the worst parts of Iraq to the insurgents, concentrate on solidifying our base--police, schools, Iraqi Army--, and then move out in a few months or years to retake the rest of Iraq.

A draft is a ridiculous idea, and as a Democrat, I'm both ashamed of Rangel for pulling a stupid political stunt like this, and mortified at his stupidity. I can't but think that this will just add substance to the attacks that Democrats don't care about individual liberty.

What an idiot.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I agree a draft is a ridiculous idea.

I'm not sure I think your option is really viable, though I guess it is at the very least an option [Smile]

We sorta did a bit of that in afganistan and now the taliban is coming back there. But we did it poorly, so perhaps executed properly it would work.

Which of course means it would have to wait til 2009 at the earliest.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"His real position is that we shouldn't be in Iraq. He's using this plan for publicity and pressure."

It is obvious that he has raised the stakes. But it is not so obvious that he is not sincere, even though it is likely that the stakes he raised will probably become an uncalled bluff, since COngress is unlikely to enact a draft.

Whether it is a bluff on arrival, it doesn't mean that he doesn't believe a draft is necessary. I was and am against our invasdion of Iraq. I predicted the outcome would be dismal, I have also said repeatedly that the only way out other than humiliating withdrawal, is a massive asmount of troops the like of which would reqauire a draft.

Also, this is a renewed call for a draft (bold emphasis mine):

"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."

Ponder that a bit. He has put his money (re-electyion) where his mouth is, and is consistent about it. If it's just a bluff, it's sophisticared and ballsy bluff.

"And I don't see his support for the draft but opposition for the war as anything but disingenuous."

Really.

"I'm sure Iraq would go better with a bunch of resentful draftees policing Baghdad?"

Well, you can always pull troops out of your rectum, I suppose. A fella says we need to sacrifice more of our flesh and blood to accomplish our mission, a mission he disapproves of but acknowledges must now be finished somehow, and suddenly we're scared to get our feet wet.

I also note that National Guardsmen being called for their second hitch aren't necessarily delighted to be returning to Iraq.

It is easy to dismiss the representative's proposal on the basis that 'his fellow dems' won't support it, but the republican-controlled Congress didn't pass it either.

It is easy to criticize a sub-faction of the left for dubiously citing his proposal as part af a Bush agenda to reinstate the draft, but that is only to place the poorly thought out opinions and dishonestly stated claims of a minority against the simple statements of the representative.

But the simple fact is that the bastard is stating the friggin' truth: we need a draft... or we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. If he's just grandstanding a bluff to gain poitical clout, one can only admire his shrewdness. All he has to do is stand up and tell the truth. Such a deal.

A draft a bad idea? Question: is there anyone here who sees the USA avoiding significant conflicts over the next several decades? I hate it but the likelihood seems to ne very strong that we'll be getting tangled up in blue all over the world for the nexr few decades.

Gonna take a draft. A whole lotta folks wanna talk about war but no one wants to staff tone. Kinda like Rumsfeld. We all know how well *his* approach worked. Not.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I add that wanting enough troops to finish the job you didn't want started isn't disingenous; it's responsible.

Disingenuity is to be found in the likes of Rumsfeld, who misled from the beginning about why and how to invade Iraq and transform it into a peaceful democracy.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
p.s. *sigh* It was so much easier before this recent election when Bush-bashing was the single most effective action to take toward resolviung this Iraqi mess.

Now the duck is lame and argely irrelevant. Let the rangeling (sic) begin. It will require a war in Congress to end the war in Iraq.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
I am fairly certain that requiring military service would make this a worse place. a large standing military is too tempting to people who make policy for the military.
I agree. Required service would allow for a much smaller standing army. With so many pre-trained reservists, we would not need as many active-duty personnel.

Everard also said:
quote:
I do not think that seeing what the military is all about would make this country a better place.
I disagree.

[ November 19, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I go on record stating I'm all for universal military service.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
"that is more than the southern United States"

Uh, FDR?

It's just the North East that doesn't proportionatly supply volunteers. Enlistments from CA, for instance, are almost exactly proportionate to our percentage of the total population.

edited to add

I'm all for universal service, but not universal military service.

[ November 19, 2006, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Well, there are a lot of ways to grow the ranks.

You could offer more cash, so it would be appealing to more than the least well-heeled among us.

You could build an army of killer robots. The Boomba could clear out a few hidey holes, you could afford to lose the unit - replacing it means more jobs not fewer citizens.

You could offer land to any settler that will come and defend it. [Wink]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
You could make military service a prerequisite to enfranchisement. (Robert Heinlein)
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Nah, service was a prerequisite, not neccesarily military. Don't have the book anymore, but I remember that bit pretty clearly.

Look at it this way, should those medically unfit be denied the franchise?

Also, we've got this annoying freedom of religion concept, and we don't always need a massive standing military.

We have plenty of trees to plant and highways to repair and build. We have plenty of inner city kids who could use a reading tutor, even one in a wheelchair.

What I want, you get three hots and a cot + minimum wage for four years, the toughest work we can give you, and you get the franchise...OR you can go into the military and get similar pay and the franchise + the GI bill and the ussual veterans preference for government jobs and such.

There are a million things we could use non-military low-cost labor for, from cleaning up brown sites to rebuilding after disasters, to fighting wild fires, to constructing classrooms, to cooking up food and driving trucks in Iraq if they were willing, and all for a lot less than we're paying contractors to do the same stuff now.

Those willing to serve overseas would also essentialy let us embark on a program of winning hearts and minds, allowing people to do their service AFTER college if they wanted and putting their skills to work in a seriously expanded version of the Peace Corps. You wanna fight the guys who brought water to your village or fixed grandmas cataracts?


Additional benefits? Plenty of young people with savings and trade skills, a strong work ethic, a sense of discipline, and an investment in their society.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I'm all for universal military training. From there, I can go for what Jesse describes.

I don't know squat about firearms, although I've had more than the average share of interesting run-ins and experiences and experiments with guns. Yet my tax dollers go to nuclear weapos programs.

I beieve our society would be a bit saner if we all went through a bt of West Point. Not just guns and tear gas but also an additional 3 months of heavy hard-core civics education including mandatory debate, oratory, editorialization ('pamphleteering'?) et cetera.

I believe franchise should be a burden we carry not a right we are granted. No, not mandatory voting or any crap like that. But a period of tribal induction in our teenage years that prepares us for the rigors of attempting group self-management. (I believe that the more corrupt elements of our government would vehemently oppose such education and involvement.)

I think C-SPAN should somehow tie in Nielsen ratings with Congressional clout and tenure, providing incentive for sessions of Congress to be both as crudely engaging as Jerry Springer and smoothly sophisticated as Boston Legal.

We should hold our politicians to standards at least as high as those we hold for talk show guests.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
quote:

I'm all for universal service, but not universal military service.

quote:

I go on record stating I'm all for universal military service.

It's times like these that I am reminded of just how far away in outlook I am from my fellow 'liberals'.

I get that there are lots of cool things that could and can be done with forced labor and forced military service, but what you guys are proposing rubs me wrong on so many different levels of principle.

I guess, at heart, the idea that a citizen must serve the state for some period of years for the collective good strikes me as just this side of, I don't know, I don't want to say slavery, but something pretty wrong.

[ November 20, 2006, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
By the way, I don't mind the state offering service to people at a competitive wage and hiring them. But holding a gun to their head and saying you will serve, or else? No way.

..................

Rereading what you guys wrote, it is unclear to me whether you want 'universal' civil/military service, or you just want to make a precondition of franchise. While the latter option is less distasteful, I would still oppose it.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I'd actually say its WORSE, storm. "Oh, you didn't serve? Well, you aren't a citizen, then." As compared to "everyone is equal. If you refuse, you go to jail."
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
Once you go to jail, though, you often lose the ability to vote.

Also, going to jail for any length of time is destructive to a person on emotional and economic levels, and sometimes physical levels, that just not having citizenship is not.

I grant you, though, that the problem would correct itself when the people voted to get rid of it, whereas without their vote, that wouldn't happen.

I guess I see your point.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I get that there are lots of cool things that could and can be done with forced labor and forced military service, but what you guys are proposing rubs me wrong on so many different levels of principle.

I guess, at heart, the idea that a citizen must serve the state for some period of years for the collective good strikes me as just this side of, I don't know, I don't want to say slavery, but something pretty wrong."

Who ya calling a liberal!?! [Wink]

I sympathize with your sentiments. I note that taxation is a form of slavery, although one that grants one the right to be a pauper all one's life and in so doing escape paying taxes.

"...it is unclear to me whether you want 'universal' civil/military service, or you just want to make a precondition of franchise. While the latter option is less distasteful, I would still oppose it."

Both are options. Conscription, to be sure, comes and goes and will likely come again.

I like to think in terms of 'fealty'. Our government is sworn to fealty toward us via COnstitution. We native born citizens are sworn to no more fealty than to avoid outright treason. (I'm leaving Rule of Law aside of this. We are all obviously subject to the Law, fealty or franchise notwithstanding. For a moment's comparative perspective, consider diplomatic immunity.)

We have invented a state that, remarkably, is pledged to serve us. How well it delivers is another matter. It is nonetheless pledged to serve at our pleasure and in our interests. We the people, et cetera.

Yeah, I'd have no pproblem with 6 months' required intense training in the Two Requisites: national defense and civic mechanics. Defending the homeland and being certified to drive, maintain, repair, and customize the engine of government and vehicle of state.

As for 2 and 4 year hitches in the army or peace corps or what have you, I could see that as a prerequisite fr runnng for office, maybe (just considering the otion, is all) but don't perceive any pressing benefit from mandatory service along such lines.

But 6 months' Citizenship 101 Boot Camp strikes me as being of tremendous benefit. A cementing of the governmental social contract. Finished with either an oath to uphold the Constitution, or be granted a guest visa good for five years before you must either immigrate elsewhere or take the oath (at which time one pays the costs of one's 6-month boot camp).

People LIKE to own things. That's why cmmunism doesn't work to date. Make people earn their citizenship and franchise, and they'll probably take much beter care of same.
 
Posted by Eric (Member # 2699) on :
 
I've always thought that the services (and society in general) would be well served if each branch took some small percentage of their recruiting quota from the draft. BUT...it would have to managed in such a way that there were no exceptions, exemptions or deferments except in the most unusual circumstances.

During my time in the service (27 years combined active and reserve), I was surprised at how many "lifers" I met who came in as Vietnam-era draftees and ended up staying for 25-30 years or more.

Given that Rangel voted against the draft legislation he himself introduced in 2003, I can only conclude that this is just more grandstanding. I don't oppose a draft, but I'm vehemently opposed to one that's established for purely political reasons.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Eh, some people are terrified by the notion of dirt under their fingernails, but I figure, if all you've done "for" this country is pick up a check or let your people handle your inherited wealth you shouldn't have any say in how the doers do.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Drake: You could make military service a prerequisite to enfranchisement. (Robert Heinlein) In Boner Boy Land Heinlein's suggestion was taken -- but women are not allowed in the military !!!

Personally, I think that the draft only works when in fact one institutes it to manage a mob of wannabe enlistees.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
IE-WWII.

70% draftees, but a lot of them like my Granda were told to go home and wait for a draft notice.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
quote:

Eh, some people are terrified by the notion of dirt under their fingernails, but I figure, if all you've done "for" this country is pick up a check or let your people handle your inherited wealth you shouldn't have any say in how the doers do.

I think running a business, going to college, and engaging in many types of occupations, not to mention motherhood, are all more demanding and give more back to the country than many, if not most, things in the military, and require you to have more discipline.

It's not clear to me, though, what your definition of 'doer' is, or whether you are being entirely serious.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Richard Dey -

Since when are women not allowed in the military? I should mention that to the female Warrant I'm working with - she'll be sad to know that she can't be in the army anymore [Smile]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
FDR, he's talking about a novel, not real life.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Of course. I'm not paying as much attention to the 'board as I should be. I've been a little busy lately :/

My appologies, Richard.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
In the book, women were allowed in Fleet but not in the Infantry.

I'm mostly serious. I'm also not just talking about military service, by a long shot. We don't need a standing military that large most of the time.

Put your ass in the line of fire, or start cutting fire line, and tell me going to college "does more for your country". We are rapidly ceasing to be what can actually be called a society, and far too many think they've made more than enough "sacrafice" when they look at the witholding on their paycheck.

Now, I believe everyone should have the opportunity to serve and to earn the franchise, and I believe that those who refuse to pay back the Country that has already given them back so much by the time they reach their 18th birthday should still be entitled to all rights other than the franchise.

I do believe that all men are created equal, but you shouldn't get to be on the board of directors without an investment. Merely purchasing services (paying your taxes) isn't an investment.

So far, we've got the argument that a voluntary indenture for a set period of time is slavery, and the argument that the country is better served by people seeking their own self interest while their taxes are used to pay private contractor vastly inflated sums to perform tasks we could accomplish for a fraction of the cost.

Any one have an argument worth spending more than a few words refuting?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Well, you are talking fascism and not democracy or republicanism. You're also talking class stratification. And I can't think of a single society that I would want to live in that has class stratification on the level you are talking about, because an underclass is dangerous to society, and you are talking about a government mandated underclass.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Given that Rangel voted against the draft legislation he himself introduced in 2003, I can only conclude that this is just more grandstanding."

The nuance is in the details:

Rangel votes against own draft bill

Whether the devil is in the nuance is another matter.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
How am I talking about a government mandated class stratification, Everard?

*Everyone* will be eligible to serve, no matter what we have to come up with for them to do.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
ANd if you don't, the government mandates you are not a citizen.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Nope, the government denies you the franchise.

Not nearly so bad as locking people up for years because they refuse to kill, neh?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Actually, what Jesse describes is a meritocracy. Put in a little work for Da System, earn the right to vote on how Da System works.

50% of contemporary citizens don't bother to exercise their franchize. I'm willing to bet that Jesse's model would reduce that inactivity by half.

BE...ALL THAT YOU CAN BE... ONE OF THE FEW, THE PROUD, THE FRANCHISED. Today's universal suffrage provides a great foundation for a form of democracy requiring more patriotism than a few flag decals for an elected official to give yer rat an ass.

It would give a whole new cachet to bumpoers stickers saying "I (support/oppose) x,y,z...and I VOTE."
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1