Yall wanted liberal's in Congress to rule! You got them!
I thought you guy's wanted the war to end, not send your son's and daughter's to die.
The biggest liberals in Congress now want a draft, just like Republican's told you they would, but seems you didn't listen.
What will you do when your child is ordered to join the military, and fight in Iraq? It doesn't seem you got what you wanted from your liberal candidates, does it?
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?_ccc=4&cid=842
2006-11-20 04:34:34 · 19 answers · asked by xenypoo 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I presented 2 side's to the issue, one conservative, the other liberal. Read both and deside for yourself, what is truth, and what is fiction.
2006-11-20 04:57:13 · update #1
I am pretty sure all those "conservative democrats" and independents and libertarians, and so on and so on will be kicking themselves in the *** if and when a draft is started up again. Maybe we will have people who truly hate America leave in drones. That's one way to get rid of them. I for one don't think it's a good idea, not because I don't want my kids to serve but because I think our Military is better when people want to serve.
2006-11-20 05:16:42 · answer #1 · answered by tigerbaby322006 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
First, enable's understand what passed off - the Democrats have been given a significant legislative victory by utilising tagging a minimum salary hike (long previous due) to the Iraq investment bill. this suggests that for the 1st time simply by fact the Clinton years, people will understand an advance in the minimum salary, that will advance over the subsequent 2 years from a gloomy to $5.15 to $7.25 according to hour. The Republican social gathering has been blockading a minimum salary advance as a stand on my own bill. for this reason, this exchange into one reason some Dems voted for the bill. 2nd, enable's understand the alternative. Bush took the extreme non-compromising place that he could veto ANY bill that set a timetable or binding benchmarks for the Iraq government. regrettably for people, the Republicans in Congress stood with Bush in denying votes for an override of veto of the bill supported by utilising the Dems that modify into sent to Bush initially. The Dems basically last selection could have been to kill all legislations and enable the investment expire. this could have dramatically decrease off funds immediately for the troops and compelled an instantaneous withdrawal, which maximum Dems do not elect and maximum people additionally do not elect. i'm happy the Dems did not take the choice extreme place. In precis, what you observed is the effect of Bush and his social gathering taking an extreme place, securing their place as possessing this conflict. All in all the Dems did the main suitable they could under the circumstances.
2016-10-22 10:25:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
did you even read those articles?
right now, the military consists of volunteers. in some cases, these volunteers are in the military as part of a plan to better their futures because they are NOT rich. the one democratic congressman that is lobbying for this change says that a draft would be 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.
i'm not agreeing with what rangel has to say, but i don't think you're understanding the message.
2006-11-20 04:44:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I am an independent leftist (not a wimpy liberal Democrat) and I am all for a draft. Democrats are spineless. I believe that a draft is necessary. If poor city and farm kids have to sacrifice for this cause, then the suburban gated community crowd must also. And let the Senators' sons go too. And Bush's daughters. Once CEO's see their precious, spoiled, privately schooled, trust fund darlings get drafted, this war will come to an end. REAL QUICK. Guaranteed. Their plan all along was to have the poor fight their wars. A draft would take them by surprise.
2006-11-20 04:43:02 · answer #4 · answered by cannonball 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why should we?
You Republicans who lied and cheated and sent our troops into danger's way didn't bother to send any of YOUR children, why should we send more of ours?
I think it's a better idea to reinstate the draft and draft all the Republican Religious Right and the Neocon Moneygrubbing No-Bid-Contract rich boys overseas. I bet the war would end REAL fast if all those little spoiled rich kiddies got drafted.
2006-11-20 04:43:35 · answer #5 · answered by sewmouse 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
At the risk of stirring you up, Cong. Rangel's proposal is designed to put a spotlight on the fact that too many voters are laid back when their sons and daughters have nothing at stake in going to war.
2006-11-20 04:40:15 · answer #6 · answered by jackbutler5555 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The only reason that the ONE senator that is trying to re-instate the draft is doing so is to stop the war. He figures that if the blood thirsty republicans were faced with the possibility of their own privileged children having to face war, instead of just the usual suspects like the poor and monorities, then they wouldn't be so gung-ho about waging it. If you insist on representing the "right" you should at least make yourself informed.
2006-11-20 04:42:08 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Let's see.
Most lower income groups vote democrat, most higher income groups vote republican.
In the US army, people from eithnic minorities and poorer areas are dramatically over represented.
In other words, democrats are ALREADY fighting the war in Iraq. It's the rich republican kids who aren't.
2006-11-20 04:49:36 · answer #8 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
we should ask how many of the Congressional GOP's kids are in the service (any branch) and are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. as another respondent indicated, more of the lower income groups vote democrat and it is their sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and husbands and wives serving in the combat zones....
BTW...you DO recall that Georgie-Porgie got his daddy to get him a spot in the Texas Air National Guard, don't you? and that he never served one minute of time in ANY combat zone, right?
and further, that president cheney [(george is just a puppet, you know) you mean, you didn't realize that?] never served ANY time in the service (any branch) and neither did much of the lame-duck do-nothing republican leadership in the House and the Senate.
2006-11-20 05:20:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
This will never happen. But I think a mandatory National Service program would be a good idea. What are your objections to servign America, hmm?
2006-11-20 04:38:55 · answer #10 · answered by kreevich 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋