Is Military Draft Coming Back?

Current Events Domestic United States Politics
1

Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/…litics_draft_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

And what is more, check these lines out from the same source:

“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.

And finally, dropping a hammer:

“I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical,” he said.

Wow. Apparently, defending individual rights is OK, but only if you agree with breaking those same rights that you are defending by forcing people to give their life away.

Democrats are back and they are not kidding around.

2

He tried this before and it didn’t work. The only people who voted for it last time were Democrats. It doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever getting more than 5 votes.

3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

To think or say that forcing more people to work for the government is a good thing, as an end in itself, is absolutely disgusting. And even if most of Rangel’s colleagues recognize that he’s a nutcase, I doubt they have the grounding in rationality to see beyond misconceptions like this.

And even if Rangel won’t be able to directly enslave people through a draft, he is chairman of the House Weighs and Means Committee, which oversees taxation, tariffs, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Medicare, etc. With destructive premises like his - in which he believes people should be forced to serve the government - that’s no doubt an unsafe place for him to be. (In fact, the safest place to keep him is probably prison or an asylum.)

This is the reason I didn’t agree with Peikoff on voting Democrat - not just over Rangel, but over other Democrats that are equally intent on enslaving people, and because I don’t think Democrats in general can stand up to that way of thinking. I didn’t actually go through his argument in detail, since I didn’t need to vote, since I don’t live in a swing district, so I’m not up to snuff to argue about it; but this is why my gut reaction, at least, was to disagree with Peikoff.

4

This is the reason I didn’t agree with Peikoff on voting Democrat - not just over Rangel, but over other Democrats that are equally intent on enslaving people, and because I don’t think Democrats in general can stand up to that way of thinking. I didn’t actually go through his argument in detail, since I didn’t need to vote, since I don’t live in a swing district, so I’m not up to snuff to argue about it; but this is why my gut reaction, at least, was to disagree with Peikoff.

Yes, thank you! As soon as I saw the dems win I new this kind of crap was going to start happening. The really sick thing about this is he is only doing it to try and make Republicans look bad. If people think Iraq is so bad that we might need to bring back the draft then they might just blame Bush for it…repeatedly trying to destroy our freedom for his own political gain, it’s a classic move out of the Democrats’ playbook…and we can look forward to at least 2 more years of these kinds of attacks. :dough:

I guess I understand Peikoff’s fears about the Republicans. But I simply didn’t think it was as much of a threat as the kinds of things the Democrats will do…

5

We all love to hate the Democrats, as much as we love to have the Republicans; I just don’t see any evidence at all that this well-known New York nutter has anything to do with the Democratic Party’s stance on anything. I don’t dispute that the Democrats are intent on enslaving people, but this is just as true of the Republicans. And that is, very simply, because neither party has an ideology, they have a position du jour. The warrantless spying bill was introduced by 4 Republicans including former (hahaha Mike get a new job) Ohio Republican Senator DeWine; the Terry Schiavo bill (one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in modern history) was introduced by Republican Bill Frist; No Child’s Behind Left was introduced by Ohio Republican John Boehner; No Child Part II was introduced by Republican Don Young; the Oxley half of the evil twins Sarabanes-Oxley is yet another Republican from, uh, yeah, there.

6

I’m tired of strict partisanism in general. Before the last congressional election, my friend and I went and looked up several candidates’ stances on things like education, abortion, the draft, etc. It was interesting to find how many people within the same party disagreed with each other, or even agreed with people from the other party.

As DavidOdden said, just because one nutter who calls himself a Democrat wants to reinstate the draft doesn’t mean they all do. That said, I still don’t like them. :dough:

What shocked me is this:

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight.

Does he actually think that a universal draft would change that? And anyway, trying to strong-arm congressmen into pulling out of Iraq is not even an attempt at a reason to take away peoples’ rights. (Not that such a reason exists).

7

Is the military draft coming back? The answer is yes, in one form or another.

Both the Conservatives (the Republicans) and the Liberals (the Democrats) have ceased seeing humans as individuals, but instead as pawns. To the Conservatives, we are pawns to act in accordance to God’s will. To the Democrats, we are pawns for “society”. But they both agree that we are pawns.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal movement are not cohesive however; there is still a mixture of rationality in them. For the Conservatives, that rationality is expressed in the form of lower taxes, but reduced personal freedom (so we may follow “God’s will”). For the Liberals, that rationality is expressed in the form of more personal freedoms, at the expense of lower taxes (as we may help society).

If you may recall, President Bush himself attempted to reinstate a type of a draft back in pre-911 America, in the form of mandatory “volunteer” community service for all High School students. This draft was killed after 9-11. Why did Bush want this type of draft? Because internally, he sees all Americans as not being individuals, but instead, as part of a collective to help the “greater good”.

Now Charlie Rangel is attempting to create a draft again (this time, a Vietnam style draft, I would think). Sadly, I am unable to come up with a logical, rational reason why Charlie Rangel wants a Vietnam style draft, especially given the anti-draft movement the liberals lead during the Vietnam era (lead by none other then John Kerry).

Now, will Charlie Rangel’s draft attempt pass and succeed? The answer is, no. Most Americans want to get out of Iraq. Most Americans (especially those who are of an older generation, who votes much more often) remember vividly the Vietnam era, and how hard the majority of Americans fought to remove the draft. Any congressman who votes for a draft of this type I expect to have a sudden and hard defeat come in 2008. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if a draft of a mandatory “volunteer” type does come to pass eventually.

8

We all love to hate the Democrats, as much as we love to have the Republicans; I just don’t see any evidence at all that this well-known New York nutter has anything to do with the Democratic Party’s stance on anything. I don’t dispute that the Democrats are intent on enslaving people, but this is just as true of the Republicans. And that is, very simply, because neither party has an ideology, they have a position du jour. The warrantless spying bill was introduced by 4 Republicans including former (hahaha Mike get a new job) Ohio Republican Senator DeWine; the Terry Schiavo bill (one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in modern history) was introduced by Republican Bill Frist; No Child’s Behind Left was introduced by Ohio Republican John Boehner; No Child Part II was introduced by Republican Don Young; the Oxley half of the evil twins Sarabanes-Oxley is yet another Republican from, uh, yeah, there.

The thing is, Rangel’s call for a draft is the conclusion that must be arrived at from the Democrats’ premises. So they can’t really stand against his call for the draft; they just have to ignore it because it’s not politically expedient and the extreme nature of the idea scares them.

The GOP truly is the party that has no identity and no premises - its members seem, to varying degrees, to be obsessed with security, Christian charity, imposing their morality on others, and sometimes tradition. Nothing cohesive.

What the parties have in common is an irrational lack of concern for individual rights. Both will lead the nation to the same place if left unchecked, but the Democrats will do it more directly, while the Republicans will bumble around (and seem to have a propensity to both make particularly bad decisions and to become corrupt). I don’t know anything about how DIM is supposed to apply to this situation, but it seems to me, on the surface, that the Democrats’ misintegration is at least as dangerous as Republican disintegration.

9

“Democrats’ misintegration is at least as dangerous as Republican disintegration.”

I think you’ve got the two backwards. Republicans have a very clear idea of whta they want to accomplish, more so than the Democrats. The democrats have as their stated policy: “What ever the republicans aren’t doing.”

10

Republicans have a very clear idea of whta they want to accomplish, more so than the Democrats.

I wish that were true!

11

I think you’ve got the two backwards. Republicans have a very clear idea of whta they want to accomplish, more so than the Democrats. The democrats have as their stated policy: “What ever the republicans aren’t doing.”

I actually think exactly the opposite. Unlike Peikoff, I don’t think the GOP merely represents “religion” - there’s not that much cohesion in the party, and it will never be that simple as long as men like John McCain are in the party. The Democrats did get the swing vote in 2006 because they weren’t Republicans. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have cohesive socialist principles. And they see their election as a popular mandate to put those principles into practice. By the way, look forward to Hillary in '08 if the country doesn’t fall apart in the next 2 years - and we all know what she stands for.

EDIT: Added last 2 sentences.

12

There’s not that much [religious] cohesion in the [Republican] party…

[Democrats] have cohesive socialist principles.

Why do you say this?

13

Why do you say this?

You know, I’ve thought about it for a while, done some research, and if I think Peikoff overestimates the religiosity of the GOP, I at least agree that the trend is towards religiosity. I assumed that there were still small-government conservatives in the high ranks of the GOP who would generally oppose faith-based legislation, but now I’m not so sure. I think those people still exist among everyday Americans in strong numbers, though. I think America is becoming more polarized, and those people are dropping out and beginning to consider themselves “libertarian.” So in the end, I have to say my conclusions about the GOP actually are about in line with Peikoff’s - especially factoring in trends that are changing the party makeup and leadership.

As for the Democrats being a cohesive group with socialist principles - can you think of any self-proclaimed Democrat who does not favor significant wealth redistribution?

I originally questioned Peikoff’s assertion that the socialist movement is weakening - it was initially hard to think otherwise from my perspective as a student at a very liberal public university. I get those ideas hammered down my throat relatively often (more implicitly than explicitly). But the more I think about it, the more I agree with him that in the long run, from a broad perspective, internationally (and ultimately domestically), socialism is on the decline. We have a LONG way to go in this country before solid Democratic voters give up on their socialist principles - probably won’t happen for another generation - but I think eventually it will to some substantial degree.

14

“Democrats’ misintegration is at least as dangerous as Republican disintegration.”

I think you’ve got the two backwards.

By the way, I did have that backwards. :slight_smile: At that point I wasn’t trying to make a statement myself on which party was M’ing and which was D’ing, only to repeat Piekoff’s statement, but I got something mixed up.

15

Has anyone recently heard any more noise coming from anyone about reinstituting a draft? I expected that this would just be limited to Representative Charles Rangel, as he has tried to push for conscription many times before with very little support.

16

The new War Czar announced that a military draft (in the United States) should be considered.

Given how these wars are being fought, this is bad news.

Concerning the topic of this thread, the Republicans are very much the party we need to worry about supporting a draft. The Democrats are adamantly against the War in Iraq.

17

… the Republicans are very much the party we need to worry about supporting a draft. The Democrats are adamantly against the War in Iraq.

Yes, in today’s context, a Democrat president would probably focus on how to exit Iraq, compromise with the Iranians and Syrians, and so on. On the other hand, all likely Republican nominees sound like they want to stay the course. I wonder about Guiliani, because he sounds adamant about continuing the war. Being the ultimate pragmatist, I fear he might be the one to make the case that the draft is simply the fair and practical way to fight this fight.

18

A draft would be tantamount to political suicide. I don’t see it happening.

19

If it does come back, it would be great since everyone could fight the nation’s and people’s enemies to protect the national security.

20

You have made a post like this in two different threads and I am unsure of the meaning.

Is it meant to be sarcastic or ironic?

You don’t really advocate involuntary servitude do you?