This is a dumb idea

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

House Democrat wants draft reinstated

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."

Sen. Lindsey Graham a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments....................

more here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_.../military_draft

[TheNiche]

House Democrat wants draft reinstated

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

Yeah, this'll never happen. It is outrageous on any number of levels.

[houstonmacbro]

i think it is a great idea. if we are so willing to goto war, why not prove it through the use of compulsory military service?

[TheNiche]

i think it is a great idea. if we are so willing to goto war, why not prove it through the use of compulsory military service?

Because even if the next presiding congress to have to declare a war decided not to overturn the draft law of 2007 prior to the declaration of the new war, it is an incredibly inefficient system. Rangel's intent is analogous to congress passing a resolution that in order to wage war, the government must first allocate resources for the construction of 100 seperate billion-dollar memorials to the war. It would be so costly (if enforced) as to be a poison pill to all future wars...even the justifiable ones.

To enumerate the inefficiencies would require a book. But the big ones are that 1) an all-volunteer force tends to be much more effective because they don't feel as coerced, 2) many people, like myself, decided ultimately not to join a service because they could make a lot more money in the private sector instead, and if those people can be so productive at home, then they need to stay at home and contribute to the tax base that funds the war, 3) it doesn't make sense to randomly send cross-sections of the population into high-risk areas if a relatively low-skilled set of the population is willing to do the job; this is poor rationing of labor resources, and 4) if the job can be done with fewer people, then why put more warm bodies (i.e. moving targets) on the ground to be shot at. There's also something to be said for having military try to do more with fewer human resources during wartime...it forces them to look toward the adoption of new technology as a force multiplier and keeps them a step or two ahead of the rest of the world.

[bachanon]

if we are so willing to go to war, why not rely on people who have chosen to be in the armed forces? compulsory service would diminish the resolve of active forces. if you choose to commit to duty, you are less likely to blame someone else for your decision and, a good person, will follow through.

rangle, or rangel, is simply being the usual dunce that he is. he thinks that some extreme legislative measure will end war or make the privileged people equal with common folk. he's a small minded man who shouldn't get the press coverage that he does. kind of like al sharpton or al franken. if some of these dorks would at least read alternative press, they might be challenged to be a bit more sophisticated in their endeavors. i doubt that sharpton or rangel read much. franken probably checks someone's voting record before reading their book. god forbid that he read an opposing viewpoint.

(note to self.............resubscribe to "reason" magazine.)

reason magazine

[sevfiv]

if we are so willing to go to war, why not rely on people who have chosen to be in the armed forces?

well, part of his argument was that some of those who choose to do so don't do it because they really want to.

[RedScare]

if we are so willing to go to war, why not rely on people who have chosen to be in the armed forces? compulsory service would diminish the resolve of active forces. if you choose to commit to duty, you are less likely to blame someone else for your decision and, a good person, will follow through.

rangle, or rangel, is simply being the usual dunce that he is. he thinks that some extreme legislative measure will end war or make the privileged people equal with common folk. he's a small minded man who shouldn't get the press coverage that he does. kind of like al sharpton or al franken. if some of these dorks would at least read alternative press, they might be challenged to be a bit more sophisticated in their endeavors. i doubt that sharpton or rangel read much. franken probably checks someone's voting record before reading their book. god forbid that he read an opposing viewpoint.

(note to self.............resubscribe to "reason" magazine.)

reason magazine

The problem with your response bachanon, is that the entire second paragraph resorts to unsophisticated name calling, which adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

[TJones]

Good to see that these Democrats that the people elected are going to straight to work on pissing off the public. That is some REAL forward thinking there.

All quotas are being met to fill military positions with a VOLUNTEER military. Rangel's idea that this will deter "going to war" is ridiculous on the grounds that even in the War on Terrorism, we haven't lost an amount of troops that would justify instituting a draft to replenish the Armies. I don't beleive that we will ever be in another war where we would have so many casualties, that a draft would ever be instituted. There are plenty of men and women willing, and if it came down to it where the Govt. actually put out a call to every able body, that there would be plenty of people to step up, no matter WHO the Pres. is.

[bachanon]

The problem with your response bachanon, is that the entire second paragraph resorts to unsophisticated name calling, which adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

i agree. as usual, red, you are quick to point out my flaws; however, i was blowing off some steam. i bite my tongue very often around friends and family. unleashing an irrelevant diatribe on haif is, occasionally, good therapy. sorry to burden you. i still you.

[gwilson]

I believe that there should be compulsory civil service as it is. From the age of 18 to 20, all American youth should be required to perform two years of civil service (not limited to military service).

[RedScare]

i agree. as usual, red, you are quick to point out my flaws; however, i was blowing off some steam. i bite my tongue very often around friends and family. unleashing an irrelevant diatribe on haif is, occasionally, good therapy. sorry to burden you. i still you.

No sweat, bach. I heart you, too.

BTW, I disagree with your first paragraph, as well...only for different reasons.

I am more on board with gwilson.

Edited November 20, 2006 by RedScare

[bachanon]

No sweat, bach. I heart you, too.

BTW, I disagree with your first paragraph, as well...only for different reasons.

I am more on board with gwilson.

everyone i've met or read about who've served in the israeli military (compulsory service) has seemed to be very honorable. if compulsory service was packaged as if it were an honor or duty, it might be a good thing. but coming from a country who has not required that sort of thing, it might seem an imposition (at least for the first generation of soldiers).

i'm not against compulsory service. i do think it is remarkable that people are willing to commit to our armed forces. it has an appearance of "good will". although it is, on many occasion, bribery to more unfortunate citizens.

i've met many military families for whom it is an honor to serve. i love these people. they are the backbone of our military. i hate it when people belittle what these families stand for.

[Highway6]

I believe this is the 3rd time he has tried to propose this bill.. and each previous time it has died in subcommitee...

[westguy]

They might as well. They need to stop giving all the personal information on high school kids to military recruiters.

[DJ V Lawrence]

House Democrat wants draft reinstated

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

This guy's lost his mind. NOTHING would have stopped Congress or the President from waging war in Iraq. At that time, Congress and Bush were on the same page. There wasn't as much a division among the conservatives as there is now, and they were the ones running both executive and legislative. It wouldn't have mattered if there were a draft or not; more Americans probably would have died because of the draft. Hell, a draft is what people were concerned about in the first place.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Minorities: not really. Lower-income as in lower income than the rich: that's true. I didn't meet that many millionaires in the Army, that's for sure. Part of the recruitment strategy is to offer Americans "a way out" with college money and life insurance to your family if U die in combat. The worse the economy is, the more fuel recruiters have to sign people in, especially 18-20 year-olds who are healthy and faster than most other age groups. Perhaps that great economy that Bush likes to brag about is one reason why not as many people want to sign up...

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."

Correction, Rangel. You can't see how anyone in CONGRESS can support the war and not support the draft. He sounds like one of them "blue bloods" TJones mentioned in another thread. He's only thinking mission and not thinking innocent lives. Or maybe he's thinking "if we restart a draft while Bush is in office, we could drop Bush's approval ratings into negative numbers." That's true, but that would mean Rangel's not keeping politics out of his agenda. What's this guy's intent?

Sen. Lindsey Graham a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

He seems reasonable, but it seems like it's the military veterans in Congress are the ones who are even considering the draft.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments....................

THAT part is the closest to realistic that Rangel has gotten in those statements. We are under-manned when it comes to fighting two wars at the same time. Part of that reason is because recruitment numbers have declined since the Iraq war began. That's kinda ironic; when I was in Basic Training, they were trying to find excuses for getting RID of military personel because they wanted a low census to save money in Washington since there was no war. Then after September 11th, it was like "wait, wait stay a little while longer."

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

That's kinda ironic; when I was in Basic Training, they were trying to find excuses for getting RID of military personel because they wanted a low census to save money in Washington since there was no war.

Tell me this is a lie and a horrible untruth? This is the reason i have been unleashed on the general public. People of the so call "LeMay school of thought" ie members of the nuclear club-were prime targets on their list. In the 1990's the theme was "its the economy stupid". The goal was to shed as many military personnel as possible to save money. I knew it would end up biting us in the rear As i have said before, my intention was to serve for 30+ years.

As far as the draft goes, thats stupid! It sends a very strong message to enemies and would be enemies of the USA that, the very powerful and highly trained US Military Juggernaut is made up of an all VOLUNTEER force! I remember that being repeatedly thrown up in the faces of the Soviets and the Chinese.

I have also noticed a common theme...many supporters of this stuff and compulsory service are themselves too old to be called for it.

I would much rather have an all volunteer force--people that want to be there. I do not wish to entrust the safety of my family and our nation to a group of individuals that do not wish to be part of the very organization thats charged with keeping us safe and free!

As for Israel, thats a whole other story. They live constantly with the threat of war death and destruction and as the years continue, the threat or threats gain more weight in intensity. I truely believe that if they didnt have a mandatory military service requirement, they would still have large numbers of volunteers.

[Pumapayam]

i think it is a great idea. if we are so willing to goto war, why not prove it through the use of compulsory military service?

Again, this was an uunesassary war. I can't justify was we need to force people in a war that did nothing other than kill 3000+ more people, and injured 25,000 others, as well as still making energy prices go WAY up.

greed for oil, that is all this war is about, greed and control of oil.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Tell me this is a lie and a horrible untruth? This is the reason i have been unleashed on the general public. People of the so call "LeMay school of thought" ie members of the nuclear club-were prime targets on their list. In the 1990's the theme was "its the economy stupid". The goal was to shed as many military personnel as possible to save money. I knew it would end up biting us in the rear As i have said before, my intention was to serve for 30+ years.

As far as the draft goes, thats stupid! It sends a very strong message to enemies and would be enemies of the USA that, the very powerful and highly trained US Military Juggernaut is made up of an all VOLUNTEER force! I remember that being repeatedly thrown up in the faces of the Soviets and the Chinese.

I have also noticed a common theme...many supporters of this stuff and compulsory service are themselves too old to be called for it.

I would much rather have an all volunteer force--people that want to be there. I do not wish to entrust the safety of my family and our nation to a group of individuals that do not wish to be part of the very organization thats charged with keeping us safe and free!

As for Israel, thats a whole other story. They live constantly with the threat of war death and destruction and as the years continue, the threat or threats gain more weight in intensity. I truely believe that if they didnt have a mandatory military service requirement, they would still have large numbers of volunteers.

I agree 100%.

Why the government would EVER want to downsize the amount of military personel when they all volunteered is beyond stupid. I'm surprised that has happened before, and I'm happy U can relate.I didn't understand it at the time, and didn't think anyone would have believed me.

[gwilson]

Again, this was an uunesassary war. I can't justify was we need to force people in a war that did nothing other than kill 3000+ more people, and injured 25,000 others, as well as still making energy prices go WAY up.

greed for oil, that is all this war is about, greed and control of oil.

I still fail to see the leap in logic between this war and greed or oil.

Sure, oil was a consideration, it always is in areas that have oil reserves because the whole world needs oil.

The no-bid contracts that people keep whining about being tied to the war to help Bush & Cheney's friends get rich were awarded under the Clinton administration. There are three companies on the face of the earth, two of which aren't even American, that are capable of the work required under said contract which is awarded every 8 years.

Edited November 20, 2006 by gwilson

[Pumapayam]

I still fail to see the leap in logic between this war and greed or oil.

Sure, oil was a consideration, it always is in areas that have oil reserves because the whole world needs oil.

The no-bid contracts that people keep whining about being tied to the war to help Bush & Cheney's friends get rich were awarded under the Clinton administration. There are three companies on the face of the earth, two of which aren't even American, that are capable of the work required under said contract which is awarded every 8 years.

If Iraq did not have any oil, we'd never go in there, yet North Korea has nukes and we have yet to invade.

If we were going to invade a county, North Korea SHOULD have been it, but North Korea does not produce oil or have oil reserves. . . that is Bush for you.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I agree 100%.

Why the government would EVER want to downsize the amount of military personel when they all volunteered is beyond stupid. I'm surprised that has happened before, and I'm happy U can relate.I didn't understand it at the time, and didn't think anyone would have believed me.

Our Commander in Chief, Clinton came out to speak to us. Gave this great speech praising us for our hard work in bringing about the end of the Cold War and being forever watchful of foes of America. Told us things like, if it were not for you brave individuals we wouldnt be here today. At the end of this speech, which was a very good speech by the way, he told us to keep up the good work. Just 2 days later the boom was lowered and the forced retirements and early outs began. That was like a complete and total slap in the face This is the reason im not fan of politics and political parties. Clinton-democrat did this with the knowledge and support of th head of the US Congress Newt-republican. And by the way, this forcing out blueprint Clinton followed was drawn under Cheney! Clinton and his people just perverted it more and took it to another level.

The military plays a larger role in everyday life than people really know. Have you ever thought it strange that when Clinton and now Bush ALWAYS speak about British intelligence agencies? Ever wondered why we rely so strongly on the Brits for intel.? You can thank the Clinton people for that one. Due to the downsizing of an all volunteer force, they put a lot of the most qualified people out. Incase you reading this didnt know, many of our best and brightest intelligence agents came from the US military! Forcing these people out in many cases without warning doesnt go a long way to help recruit them to other government jobs, like the intelligence agencies, especially when they can make many many times more money in the private sector and have total control of thier lives.

All that being said, i still think the draft is STUPID!

[Parrothead]

There is only one reason while Charles Rangel wants the draft: he still thinks that poor African Americans are being targeted by the military unfairly. He's tried to do this several times, and yet when the Republicans were talking about bringing it back, he was against it.

He's an idiot, and a bigot to boot. BTW, that's my opinion, please take note

[TheNiche]

greed for oil, that is all this war is about, greed and control of oil.

I don't buy this. Where's the oil? It certainly isn't ours.

[DJ V Lawrence]

If Iraq did not have any oil, we'd never go in there, yet North Korea has nukes and we have yet to invade.

If we were going to invade a county, North Korea SHOULD have been it, but North Korea does not produce oil or have oil reserves. . . that is Bush for you.

I really think Bush went to Iraq because it looked like the easiest war to win, there was more international support, and there was more to gain. Oil wasn't everything; it was a part of the equation, though. I think he really thought that with their oil revenue, it would be used to rebuild Iraq quicker, and he would be able to spike his Cheney down and do an endzone dance

There's no way he would have jumped on North Korea with a country like China standing by it. A pre-emptive strike there would turn off the border nations to us, which in itself is strategically defeating. Don't worry; I asked myself that same question when the war in Iraq began. Got my answers quickly when I saw how China seems to come to North Korea's aid in the U.N. Security Council, not to mention the fact that North Korea seems to be a deterant to a direct U.S./China standoff, which would be economically costly for both nations.

[RedScare]

I don't buy this. Where's the oil? It certainly isn't ours.

The president is buying it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110401025.html

[TJones]

If Iraq did not have any oil, we'd never go in there, yet North Korea has nukes and we have yet to invade.

If we were going to invade a county, North Korea SHOULD have been it, but North Korea does not produce oil or have oil reserves. . . that is Bush for you.

So, just how long HAVE you been riding a bike around Houston Puma ?

Rangel has been called to the mat on his bill before. The Republicans actually set up a vote for it, and as soon as that actually happened, his punk ass pulled the bill. He isn't serious about this bill, he just wants to get his name out there.

Edited November 21, 2006 by TJones

[TheNiche]

The president is buying it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110401025.html

[sigh]

Red, the reason for going into Iraq clearly wasn't oil. If all we wanted was for Iraq to contribute more to the global supply of oil, we and the UN would've called off the embargo. Problem solved. Then we'd be getting as much oil as the market could bear and there wouldn't be nearly as much price volatility. I mean, Saddam may have been a jackass to his people, but he wasn't known for professional instability.

Now, on the other hand, Iraq's stability IS a problem. We made it a problem. This is why I bought Exxon stock in the summer of 2003. I foresaw an invasion, and I foresaw that the perceived risk to oil supplies from political uncertainty in the Middle East would cause price speculation in anticipation of a potential major supply disruption. My investment strategy (and yours, as I understand) wouldn't have worked if the supply of oil had been either drastically expanded or less risky, as Bush's political opponents claim was the goal. If you and I can forsee the true outcome, clearly so could the Bush Administration. What they evidently failed to anticipate was that the aftermath would be so difficult.

And now, yes, oil prices (i.e. supply and risk) are a concern of theirs. Their answers have changed because the situation as they perceive it has changed.

[bachanon]

[sigh]

Red, the reason for going into Iraq clearly wasn't oil. If all we wanted was for Iraq to contribute more to the global supply of oil, we and the UN would've called off the embargo. Problem solved. Then we'd be getting as much oil as the market could bear and there wouldn't be nearly as much price volatility. I mean, Saddam may have been a jackass to his people, but he wasn't known for professional instability.

Now, on the other hand, Iraq's stability IS a problem. We made it a problem. This is why I bought Exxon stock in the summer of 2003. I foresaw an invasion, and I foresaw that the perceived risk to oil supplies from political uncertainty in the Middle East would cause price speculation in anticipation of a potential major supply disruption. My investment strategy (and yours, as I understand) wouldn't have worked if the supply of oil had been either drastically expanded or less risky, as Bush's political opponents claim was the goal. If you and I can forsee the true outcome, clearly so could the Bush Administration. What they evidently failed to anticipate was that the aftermath would be so difficult.

And now, yes, oil prices (i.e. supply and risk) are a concern of theirs. Their answers have changed because the situation as they perceive it has changed.

dude, wanna take over my retirement fund?

[TheNiche]

dude, wanna take over my retirement fund?

Well you heard my good strategies. Now, to be completely fair, here's my not so good one...or just ok one, I guess. I sold half of my Exxon when it initially hit $64 per share. It backed off during interday trading to below $64 and wouldn't hit that mark again for a long long time. It was the perfect sale and I was frickin' elated!

I sold only half because I wasn't sure which way oil was going to go. Historically, Middle East instability tends to result in a quick spike in prices and slow backwardation until returning to the long-term average levels that OPEC is able dictate when prices are low. I had a hunch that things might stay pretty high for a while because production hadn't ramped up too much, but historical data seemed to indicate a pretty solid backwardation trend. So I hedged my bet. I kept half in Exxon, and nearly half in the transportation sector with JB Hunt . I also put a tad bit on Ameritrade, which was a cash machine...until they merged with TD Waterhouse, paid out a one-time massive dividend to shareholders, and proceeded to shoot themselves in the foot!

Even I, the epitome of brilliance , can't win'em all, I suppose. But all is not entirely lost. I made a hedge because I was uncertain, and have just about boken even. I'd have liked to have done a little better than that, but I can live with it.

So my partial divestiture of Exxon hasn't worked out too well...yet I find myself contemplating it again recently. Production is now pretty solid, much higher inventories...

Edited November 22, 2006 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

[sigh]

Red, the reason for going into Iraq clearly wasn't oil. If all we wanted was for Iraq to contribute more to the global supply of oil, we and the UN would've called off the embargo. Problem solved. Then we'd be getting as much oil as the market could bear and there wouldn't be nearly as much price volatility. I mean, Saddam may have been a jackass to his people, but he wasn't known for professional instability.

Now, on the other hand, Iraq's stability IS a problem. We made it a problem. This is why I bought Exxon stock in the summer of 2003. I foresaw an invasion, and I foresaw that the perceived risk to oil supplies from political uncertainty in the Middle East would cause price speculation in anticipation of a potential major supply disruption. My investment strategy (and yours, as I understand) wouldn't have worked if the supply of oil had been either drastically expanded or less risky, as Bush's political opponents claim was the goal. If you and I can forsee the true outcome, clearly so could the Bush Administration. What they evidently failed to anticipate was that the aftermath would be so difficult.

And now, yes, oil prices (i.e. supply and risk) are a concern of theirs. Their answers have changed because the situation as they perceive it has changed.

[sigh]

Niche, do yourself a favor and google the Kissinger Plan from 1975 about "Seizing Arab Oil". I realize this was a bit before your time, so I will just chalk it up to youth.

Now, as for your inability to gauge the stock market, well, that's another problem. I won't tell you how to invest, but I will say that MY Exxon stock is up over 150% from when I bought it....plus dividend reinvestment.

Sometimes, it is better not to think too hard about these things.