Senior Democrat renews call for military draft

Is this really the most appropriate way of getting people into the military? Why not raise the full-time troop level? It's not like we once didn't have a full size military.

Sort of like our intelligience agencies in the 90's....reduced size, higher payload.

Democrats are going to be very unpopular if this guy's succesful (which I don't think he will be).

Truth is, if we work from now on, we can rebuild a full time army...although this involves us putting it in the budget. They would be more efficient in battle, and it wouldn't be political suicide.

Personally, I don't think many Americans would enter a draft, unless they're directly attacked.

No, it's just political practical. Is it just me or does the subject of bring back a fulltime military seem as taboo as bring back the gold standard?

Has there been an attempt to build the army back-up to a reputable size,... anyone?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

 

Clinton gutted the military and defense to attempt to reduce the deficit.

It's eerily strange that it's the democrats, again, calling for a draft. I've previously covered how John "troops are dumb" Kerry had a hidden agenda to reinstate the draft. I don't believe it sets in with the young angry liberals of today though...that if they continue to push for democrats, they likely will have to serve their country. Oooh, shudder the thought!

 

Yes, he did...not to mention intelligience cuts.

My thoughts are we should cut some of the programs we're doing...both in social service and military. Not the personnel, and not too much on reasonable needs...but I believe our priority should be on higher troop levels.

We're nearing a dangerous time in our history, and we don't want to have a draft during that time...atleast that's how I see it. I don't even know if that's possible to do...before the shit goes down.

Dems are perceived to be against a reputable military size. It would go to reason, because if you eliminate a huge portion of our military, they could produce their own nationalized healthcare....that's been the secret recipe almost everywhere else. I don't know if they could be as cut-happy as they once were and still survive politically.

But given our direction, we might have a draft, sadily.

 

lol, i still can remember when Kerry was campaining for president back in 2004
"You elect Bush and he'll bring back the draft" now the Dems want to bring it back. The democrats were just swept into power by campaining against the iraq war but the first thing that they will do when in power is bring back the draft.
#@$%^& lying hypocrites.

 

I wouldn't assign it to democrats in general. I think the majority of them know it's a silly thing to support.

Obviously this guys very lonely, and I suppose kerry did have mistake on his website...but kerry is a mistake making guy, sooo.....

What I'm wondering is, what will we do when Iran gets to the plymouth point? Will we be able to handle Iran and other enemies? I tend to think NK will be more apt to irrationalities if we're in it with Iran....venezuela (ie Hugo) is saying a lot things that sound semi-threatening (and buying weapons),...but maybe he's just being a moron.

They don't expect it, but it might happen. Unless we to cuts in certain areas, and revert back to a large volutary army, we might face that chose.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_co/military_draft

 

its just pointless posturing

but if they did instate a draft you would watch the war end almost instantly

all the people talking tough about how we got to kill the muslims etc would disappear pretty quick, when faced with actually going over there to fight

 

Rangel is probably one of the few that supports this now. His reasoning in part comes out of Vietnam. If more parents of more kids, including members of congress and elites had kids going into the military it would keep the government from acting rashly on wars. Right or wrong that is a big part of his reasoning.

I don't think a draft is merited at this time.

I agree with others though that the military troop levels should be boosted. That is a very telling graph. That is why General Shinensky warned against the war in Iraq in the first place and said we didn't have the troops.

We are currently spending so much on equipment, much of it left over from cold war plans--that this could be reoriented into boosting troop levels. It would mean cutting back on some weapons and defense systems layouts.

That would take some hard decisions but some that would be worthwhile.

 

Rangel does this all the time, not really surprising.

 

Don't you think that's the worst way to prove a point?

Awesome. If I'm wrong, tell me...but I sometimes perceive you on the left. I find it very relaxing to know a person on the left can agree with me sometimes. *shrug*

I believe we should do mild cuts everywhere. Social and militarily...to boast levels. It wouldn't be that hard if enough people felt it was important. The pres could force this through if he wanted.

Roosevelt actually cut nearly all social spending durning world war II...bush just needs to rework his priorities in my opinion.

$70 billion to buy 295 F/A-22 Raptors........cut by 1/4
30 Virginia-class submarines for $74 billion........cut by 1/4
$46 billion to buy 458 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.....cut 1/4
Bush is actually cutting 39 billion from medicare for 'defense'....not sure what it is for.
Cut cash assistance welfare....by 5-10 percent.
Non-health Social Services......by 5-10 percent.

That's more than enough to build back troop levels. Further cuts would be made once they're ready to fight, and needed.

 

Sign up for the draft!
http://www.draftregistration.us/
It is a funny website saying the draft is required

 

I guess I'm part of an old tradition that is vanishing....the strong defense dems.

 

I hate to surprise you, but that vanished with Johnson in the 1960s. Maybe it will return with the 50+ conservative Blue Dog Democrats that were just elected.

There were huge military cutbacks during the Clinton years because he thought the military was too big, so he would not sign a budget unless it included military cutbacks. The justification for cutbacks was called the "peace dividend"

 

I think it died out after Vietnam in the 70's and into the eighties. But there used to be very liberal Republicans at the same time.

 

Does that concern you a bit?

I really don't want Republicans to be the only alternative for defense. I'd much rather have both parties look at it sanely, and reasonably. I personally believe the dems could hold power for 20 years (or more) if they just held a strong defense stance. Most Americans, especially now, care about that for the long-run.

 

Most of the liberal I know, that are in their late 40's and early 60's....all have strong defense stances. Although I'm sure many of them dislike Bush's policies, greatly.

LBJ killed that for the left, by overdoing a position...that along with Mcgovern's revolution...changed everything.

Many will say this, and I continue to say this...I'd vote for another JFK or RFK. I don't think they're perfect, but they're my kind-of democrats.

 

Dems are not anti-military by any stretch of the imagination. There are plenty who are strongly concerned about threats to the US and how to deal with them.

The ultra conservative right has demonized dems. Calling all dems liberals, describing all who disagree with Bush as "Cut and Run" is ludacrous.

A huge amount of people in the middle of the political spectrum realized this in the most recent elections. Despite the most outrageous language in the attacks, people voted against this administration. Many many of them are people who voted for Bush and Reps in 2004.

Clearly they are not on the side of terrorists, despite the outlandish claims that were made during the elections.

 

You know what is amazing about that graph, Bush 41 decided not to go into Iraq in '91 even as the US had dramatically more soldiers than currently and the americans were widely supported by far more foreign troops.

Obviously Bush 43 ignored all this in going into Iraq in 2003.

 

In general, no. But some are.

Now-a-days it's not as political correct as it was in the late 90's. I think we should always be ready for the worst.

The dems have their own camps, just like Republicans. There's not one consistant perspective on defense in either party ie each has their own perspective on solutions.

You could be right. Dems were savy in this last election. Willing to compromise on certain platforms to get a 'democrat' in office.

lol. I don't think anyones on the side the terrorist, but the terrorists. I don't get too involved with accusations like that. I find them rather silly.

 

Even Bush 41 decided to do some cuts to the miltary...just not in comparison to Clinton. Bush thought it would send him out of office (if he entered a deeper conflict with Iraq), but he didn't realize that all you need is a billionaire that wants to run for president....and you'll lose that way. I think the first Bush would have been president had Perot not come into play.

Something to that. I think he didn't focus enough on increasing troop levels. He should have started immediately after he got in office or atleast when 9/11 came. That's what I'd do....but hey!?

 

Serving your country does not equal fighting a Christian Holy War.