Is the president planning to draft?

Question

I want to know is the president planning to draft because its rumors going around that he is and i dont think its right do you.

Answer 1

idea floated by one clown in the House its going nowhere.

Answer 2

NO.

Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken, ill-informed and has not been paying attention to the news for quite some time.

The guy floating this idea is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York. He proposed the same idea in 2003 and it failed miserably in the House.

Rangel has publicly stated that if Congressmen believed their own family members were at risk of being sent off to war, they would not support military action overseas.

He seems to have missed the fact that many members of Congress have relatives in the military or military experience themselves.

Answer 3

NO...actually the incoming Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, a senior DEMOCRAT from NY, Charlie Rangel submitted the draft proposal.... again. We have an all volunteer military, which is how it should be, because we get people who WANT and CHOOSE to serve their country, and we should all be grateful to them for doing what few others would do.

Answer 4

the president has talked about that idea for 2 years, with very little support

within the next 18 months the president will leave office or become a lame duck president.
Lame duck= president at the end of his last term and/or no party support in congress.

I don't think that the war will ratchet up again after he leaves office, I think most of us want a change and hopefully we will vote in a president that will wind down the war., and let the Irans take over there own country and problems

Answer 5

The correct question is: are the Democrats who were voted into Congress going to try to push for the draft to be reinstated. That bright idea came from Charlie Rangel, Democrat.

Answer 6

it is not the president it is the newly elected democratic congress that wants the draft. what will all the democrats do now that they can not blame the president for the draft and sending more troops to iraq.

Answer 7

Recruitment levels are being met or exceeded. A draft is unneeded as of this particular day. An all volunteer army is something I am thankful for, and have the utmost confidence that they are all we need.

Answer 8

All of the people who go into the military choose it because they want to serve their country, but there is something wrong with recruiters going to schools an enticing young children (14 years old) to sign up and giving them money/signing bonuses to do so....

April Friday 15th 2005
By Tim Schmitt

"Colin Hadley spends most of his days after school skateboarding or playing Halo II on his new X-Box with friends. He sleeps until noon or later on weekends and rarely, if ever, does any schoolwork outside the classroom, where he pulls down solid C’s and a few D’s - just enough to get by. He’s the typical 15-year-old American boy: cocksure in demeanor, certain the world revolves around him, and confident that life is going to serve him well.

And he’s the new "target of interest" for U.S. military recruiters who’ve begun signing up boys as young as 14 for military service, which they will be required to begin when they turn 18.

"It’s a sweet deal," says Hadley, who boasts that he bought his X-Box with the enlistment bonus he received after signing up last month. "I don’t have to do hardly anything for three years, but they’re paying me now."

Hadley’s windfall was made possible under the Pentagon’s "pre-enlistment program" that was quietly authorized last month in an effort to ensure the number of military troops available for combat remains steady for at least the next few years. The conditions of the program are simple. A young man who is at least 14 years old and has a parent’s permission can enlist in the U.S. military, but will not report to duty until he reaches the legal age. The future soldier agrees to remain "physically and mentally fit" and to undergo annual physical examinations at the Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS). In exchange, the government provides him a $10,000 sign-on bonus that is paid in yearly installments of $2,500 until the age of 18, at which time any remaining balance is given to the recruit...."

A draft is an extreme measure, but it would put most everyone of fighting age on the same playing field. Of course, those with big bucks still will find a way to get out and not fight like Quayle, Cheney, Clinton, Rumsfield, Bush Jr., etc. But I would bet when everyone's son of draft age is on the line people would start to think more about when a war is a just war, and what justifies war in the first place. We cannot leave Iraq in the state it is in, and it will take more troops to get us to a point where there is stability again. Our LEADERS knew this, yet did nothing to prepare for it.

In 1991 Cheney stated:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

and when he was Chairman of Haliburton he said in 1996
"[I]f Saddam wasn't there, his successor probably wouldn't be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States; for the next hundred years it's going to be the world's supply of oil. We've got a lot of friends in the region. We're always going to have to be involved there. Maybe it's part of our national character, you know, we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war, and the problem goes away, and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East; it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime "

Ah, but the way they "fought" the war was exactly like this nice little box tied up with a bow, yet it didn't work that way and suddenly the administration didn't "see it coming." Mission Accomplished. Do you really believe that all of those intelligent men in Washington were so blind and didn't know what was going to happen next? The mission wasn't accomplished, and it was no where near being accomplished when they said that. Unforunately now the only way it will "accomplished" is if we try to get in there with enough manpower to help stabilize everything and clean up the messes we helped create. Will an all volunteer military do this? I suppose so, when the administration has the power to extend the deployment of troops already on the ground...

Answer 9

He won't say so ahead of time, only after the border fence is completed.

He is planning on invading Iran next, so he will have to re-instate the draft.

Answer 10

The only one who has even mentioned it is Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), and the last time it came to a vote, even he voted against it.