Earlier today, I heard that Charles Rangel wants to introduce a bill reinstating the draft. He argues that if the politicians knew that their children or their friends' children could be called to serve, they would be less likely to declare unjust wars. EXCUSE ME?!! Does he have some sort of amnesia? He must not remember the Vietnam War, because there were plenty of cases in which politicians and other influential people managed to keep their sons from going to fight. In fact, that's the subject of the Creedence Clearwater Revival song "Fortunate Son".
2006-11-20 01:31:32 · 18 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You're right...if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could avoid service back in the day, their kids will now even with a draft.
2006-11-20 01:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by monsoon05 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This will be the third time he's tried to bring back the draft. He's a democrat by the way, for all the republican bashers. Just this year he introduced legislation to draft 18-41 year olds. It went no where.
He really insults the military with some of his comments. He suggests that defending the country is unduly burdensome to the poor and minorities. He doesn't seem to know that a high percentage of people serving have high school diplomas and or college degrees.
And you are right. Those who want a deferment for the rich or influencial will find a way.
2006-11-20 09:42:59 · answer #2 · answered by JB 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A draft has many merits--it does not eliminate volunteers. I served in the Vietnam war as a volunteer(. President Kennedy asked us to think what we could do for the Country and not what the Country could do for us--and it seemed very idealistic at the time)
But we are we are are misusing the Guard and the Reserves.
They should not serve more than one tour and if we are in asustained war, then we need to give relief to them as well as the Regular Army and Marines.
If a sustained war is right then a draft is right.So if you say the draft is wrong you are saying the Troops should come home from Iraq.
2006-11-20 09:51:30 · answer #3 · answered by NuncProTunc 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're right. All they had to do was be enrolled in school or get married during the Vietnam era. There were ways to get out of it besides running off to Canada. There was also the conscientious objector that would put you in but not in combat. Pretty much the only ones who went to fight were the ones who wanted to go.
So, Charlie is all wet on the topic. However, a lot of people who don't remember all that may think he is really clever and I guess that's all he is after.
2006-11-20 10:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you that Rangel is off base on this one. If you were serving would you want the troop next to you to be a draftee who wasn't smart enough to get out of it and really doesn't want to be there? Perhaps Mr. Rangel had a bit too much Paragoric the night before.
2006-11-20 09:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Charles Rangel brought this up a few years ago but the Republicans shot it down. Haven't heard yet what Nancy Pelosi thinks of the idea.
2006-11-20 09:41:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think he is trying to make a point here about how the armed forces disproportionately draw on the working class and especially minorities because it is a way to get financing for college. He also wants to make the point that we shouldn't just start a war without really good reasons and if senators had to send their own sons they might not be so quick to go to war. I am sure Rangel is aware that this bill will never pass and he is just trying to shake things up and put this issue on the front page for a while.
2006-11-20 09:35:24 · answer #7 · answered by braennvin2 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The military says they do NOT want a draft. The military works better with an all-volunteer force.
I don't know what Rangel's problem is.
2006-11-20 10:05:07 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He is a very shrewed and intelligent man, remember he is not the majority in congress and he cannot get this bill passed on his own. It really stands no chance but by introducing this bill he puts the president on notice that we as Americans want no more Vietnam's or Iraq's. I think that is his motivation. I think crazy like a fox describes this man, better then just plain nut's
2006-11-20 09:38:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
it's just more excuses to hide the real agenda of this government like it's always been. you can see through it by the fact that he said it would deter politicians from starting wars in the first place..................well that would be halfway believable if we weren't in the middle of one..............duh
2006-11-20 09:44:46 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋