Draft reinstatment?

Question

My political views are very middle of the road. I am conservative about some things and liberal about others.
But after seeing the war between the Reps and the Dems here on answers..All the name calling and whatnot and the Dems calling the Reps warmongers and things like that...I just read that now that the Dems have taken control of the house they are pushing to reinstate the draft.
I am not biased towards either party but to me it seems hypocritical. Also this is something the Reps said they would never do.
my question is...
Do you think the President would Veto such a thing or do you think both parties are working together towards the same goal and all the mudslinging was a diversion to keep the public opinion elsewhere?

Answer 1

To put it bluntly the American people were stupid to vote in the Dems. Even though I believe there won't be a draft in the near future. The Army, Navy, AF and Marines are getting plenty of recruits, and yes, I do believe G.W. Bush would veto it. I sure don't want a military choc-full of little liberal idiots!!!

Answer 2

The dems are not anti military.

A lot of the crowd you see here claiming to be liberal democrats are that way because the republicans are in charge. These same people will become liberal republicans when that trend is the thing to do (A lot of liberal reps when Clinton was in office). A lot of these people have no clue what the democratic party stands for and just identify themselve with that party because they want to be against the ones in charge.

Answer 3

The democrats simply do not support the issues their constituents think they do. And there is zero cooperation between the two parties because the dems are freakin out of their minds.

People in this country are so sooo stupid. They gave the democrats power even though they saw all the warning signs about how crazy they are. Now they have to live with it.

Bush may or may not veto the resolution. Quite frankly, even if he vetos it, there is real risk of it being pushed through via supermajority.

However, think on this a bit. We have a representational democracy. Although the democrats have no interest in this, the republicans do, including Bush. He might let such a bill through because he thinks that is what the majority in this country want.

Answer 4

They should not consider reinstating the draft, what they should do is require all people male and female after their education is completed spend 4 years in the military learning to be adults and stop all the crime being perpetrated by young, drugged out dropouts. If someone is of such low IQ they are incapable of learning the military life then graduate them and send them to the front line. If someone is Homosexual they would serve as hair dressers, cooks, and interior designers. Only the hard core bull dykes would be sent to the front line without training, they could rely upon their PMS to see them through. If someone is severely retarded then require them to enter politics, they would fit right in.

Answer 5

You are missing the point.

It is not "the Dems", and they have no intention on reistating the draft.

It is a single congressman, Charles Rangel. He has proposed this before, and there is no evidence of any support from "the Dems" in general. But if support comes, it will come from the Republicans first.

The point Rangel is making is that an all-volunteer army is great in peacetime, and provides good job opportunities and an opportunity to serve your country. But if the congress and president choose to keep us in an *extended* war, or engage in multiple conflicts at the same time (such as threatening to invade Iran and Korea), then it is unfair on the segment of society who typically enlist in a volunteer army.

He has a point. There are soldiers who are in their third and fourth tours of duty in Iraq, national guardsmen and army reserves is front-line positions they were not trained for, and going way past the time limit they signed up for. And recruitment of new soldiers is down ... so there is no end in sight for them as far as someone coming to relieve them.

A second point is that many Americans (such as almost every person in congress) have no *personal* stake in this war. It is not their children enlisting in an all-volunteer army ... rich kids don't go to war.

His point is that if *every* kid in America had the potential of being sent to war, then we might think about war differently. As long as it's "somebody else's kid", then it is a bit too easy to support a war that has thin justification.

It is not hypocritical to oppose the war (as Rangel has) and to say "if we are going to fight a prolonged war, then why are rich kids and college kids exempt from this burden?"

I do not agree with Rangel. (Most Democrats don't.) But I recognize that he has a point.

Answer 6

shingliza, please don't wait for the draft, leave now and take your dishonorable **** buddies with you, if you can't fight for the country you damned sure should not be here,
now the question , our forefathers warned us about haveing a volenteer army, as those who want to make the army a profession wold be easier to brainwash and go against their own people, that is something our forefathers did not want to happen,
any coutry who can get their army to go against their own people are just wanting to be taken over by some dictator or worse,
the Kennedys did that in the early 60s against our constitution when he sent troops to Arkansas to intergrate the schools,but, I don't think many if any of our troops would have fired on their fellow American citizens, had it came down to it, but, you can see what has hapened since then our schools have turned to pot
kids get out of high school and can't read or write, the blacks have disrupted the classes so much no one could learn any thing, so the colleges had to lower their entrance exams , they gave a passing grade to the blacks for a grade of 50 whites had to have a score of 70 to pass, so now our country is in deep **** , we came in 5th place in technology this year and have already been shut out on math , and science, our professors are going to other countries to teach as they are tired of trying to teach idiots who can't read or write in their college exams, so al in all you tell me if you want a strickly volenteer army? our forefathers must have been one hell of a lot smarter than the idiots who are running our country today, and they were statesmen who put their lives on the line and really cared for thie country , they didn't sell their votes in congress , senate either.

Answer 7

Rangel is trying to prove a point. He believes only minorities and the poor serve in the military. He wants to draft rich kids or have congress show their hypocrisy. Compulsory service is not a bad idea.

Answer 8

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that we need to look into a draft, as well. If the top general in Iraq says that we don't have even 20,000 more troops to commit, then we are in serious trouble if something else happens.

Answer 9

Bush would prolly veto it, he would only use a draft if there was a desperate need for troops. The last draft bill got rejected 430-5

i doubt there will be a draft

Answer 10

i don't know if this makes the whole party hypocrites or just the guy bringing it up. so far i know he is the only dem that supports it.
he is a hypocrite because he was against the war, now he wants more troops in Iraq and for us to have troops in other places.