Congressman Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft
By JOHN HEILPRIN, AP
WASHINGTON (Nov. 19) - 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.
Your thoughts...
2006-11-19 15:43:04 · 10 answers · asked by marnefirstinfantry 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
While I agree with most of what Rangel said, it still wouldn't radically affect the rich. There are ways around the draft (just look at certain politicians currently in office) so that they wouldn't ever see another foreign country if they didn't want to! Reinstating the draft would force some of the brilliant young minds in this country to sign up for the military instead of going to college and focusing on their education. Also, would you reinstate it just for the males in our country or would you include females too?
2006-11-20 01:21:19 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely NOT!
As a former US Air Force officer, I can tell you that when the draft was active, the US military was in a sorry state, drugs being one of the number one issues; violence in the barracks - officers were actually afraid to enter the barracks of their enlisted troops for fear of their lives.
The draft was a dismal failure - discipline broke down, mainly because there were thousands of young men who didn't want to be there, and there was no leverage, if you will, to force them to do things they didn't want to do.
An all-volunteer force is much more professional. And while many of you have stated that it is disproportionately lower income and minority, the facts just don't bear that out - the makeup of the US military today is largely middle-class, and the ethnicity of the force closely mirrors that of society as a whole.
2006-11-20 08:52:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel that it wouldn't hurt for the youth of this nation to experience what the military teaches to the recruits during boot camp. Teaches how to act as a team not a person. They experience the world, go places that they have never heard of or never believed they would go to. Discipline. Manner. Pride for their country. You miss the little thing from back home when your gone for 6 months to a year. The military is a melting of every race, religion, creed. A four year enlistment just enough time to get trained and to see if you really like it.
2006-11-19 16:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by rug 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would teach youth what it is to respect, which is severely lacking these days. The point of this is actually to promote peace and to not use our troops so haphazardly. It is like he said, we wouldn't be at war right now if there were a chance that some of the people who were going to vote for it would possibly have to send there children to war. It really isn't a bad idea as a lot of youth these days need some discipline, and the service could provide that. The chances that the conscripts would actually be sent to a hostile zone would be slim, unless the country were in some mortal danger and if it were, most would have no problem them being sent.
2006-11-19 15:44:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You got dat right, bro. The military experience might just wake up a few of the punks running around stealing Xboxes. Respect, discipline, loyalty, a rude awakening to why people in the USA are free. Looking back, I wished I would have served in the armed forces somewhere, somehow. I thank those who serve now and to our vets who give us our freedom at the expense of their lives.
2006-11-19 18:50:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, No, NO!!!! There is no way that any of those "leaders'" kids would ever be put in harm's way, anyway; they always find a way out if they want it. The burden of war will always be on the "expendable" minorities and lower-income folks-----Why do you think they are doing away w/the middle class right now? To have more fodder to grind up in useless (except to the very rich profit/war mongers) wars.................
2006-11-19 15:51:23 · answer #6 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Democrats elect the draft simply by fact they be attentive to it is going to scare people into ending the conflict. that's what democrats are all approximately - sabotaging valid coverage with bully procedures. those people ought to be embarrassed approximately themselves, fantastically simply by fact the anti-Bush stream accused the Republicans of this variety of rubbish advert nauseum.
2016-10-22 09:46:59 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I am for it! Men and women 18-45 years of age. No deferments, no exemptions, unless you are disabled. Then depending on the degree of disability, they could serve in supportive rolls.
2006-11-19 15:53:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thought every male had to sign up at the age of 18. It is just that they haven't had force enlistment, so everyone kinda gets a pass.
2006-11-19 15:48:02 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes
2006-11-19 15:46:02 · answer #10 · answered by cork 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋