Only 1 that I know of is in favor of that... Charlie Rangel from NY. Why would you make such a generalization about the entire Democratic party based on what ONE member thinks? I'm a Republican myself, but I have to come to the defense of the Democrats on this one. The vast majority of Dems don't agree with Rangel's position and won't support it.
See... this is why you need to actually pay ATTENTION to the news and think for yourself, not just parrot what someone else is saying.
2006-11-29 01:38:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stretchy McSlapNuts 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Thanks JON!!
And first and foremost. Due to the cuts in the military over the past 15 years. Even though, we are still meeting recruitment goals etc etc. The bar is set low. Do not get me wrong here. I like the idea of a volunteer force. It works. But then again, maybe it does not. At no time in America history has a War that has lasted longer than 4 years not included a Draft.
The first one being the War of 1812 in which the draft was instated. Granted you can't really force a person to fight per say. But the ole, Kill or be killed applies here. In regards to a draft. I think it would be good. Get some of the Nay Sayers a taste of war. I fought in Iraq Freedom. And it ticks me off to hear. The whining and whistle blowing.
The draft for the current was war first discussed in 2002, then again in 2005. Guess who controlled the Govt. So, before you claim it is the Liberal/democrats you might want to visit up on Congressional doings. It is just in the Lime-light now, because it makes the media money.
Thanks
2006-11-29 01:46:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by devilduck74 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One liberal is pushing the question as a vehicle for examining the unequal burdens of this war and the war profiteering made possible by out-sourcing to private firms work previously done by the military. It seems fair -- if late -- to ask why a consultant should be paid twenty times as much as an enlisted person to perform a like task while the consultant is outside the chain of command and beyond accountability. And, while his employer profits handsomely with no-bid contracts, no oversight and no again, accountability.
The draft question also speaks to the lack of burden for those who declare war while their sons and daughters are not called to serve their country. And they are also relieved of paying the cost of the war by more tax cuts and, as stock holders, enjoy increasing profits and capital gains. At the same time the debt is increased and passed on to future generations.
Clearly some are sharing the burden of the war in Iraq while some are not. Debate is overdue and looking a "the draft" will facilitate such debate.
2006-11-29 02:25:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by murphy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They want to do it as a tactic to keep the american public distracted from what everyone is doing behind the scenes in congress. The republicans and democrats are working together to use your tax dollars to make themselves and their friends rich. So they stage fights and find issues worth arguing about and while the american public is talking about reinstating the draft, the men in congress are voting to spend tax dollars on things that the country does not need. They are voting to pocket more money than their $200,000 a year salary.
So as long as they can come up with something like forcing people to serve, that would be a bigger hot button issue than the evil stuff that all of the politicans are doing behind the scenes.
2006-11-29 01:38:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joe K 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's just another scare tactic that politicians use. They want people to think that the draft might return, then in response, disapprove of the war. It's not just democrats, republicans use scare tactics as well because they can be very influential. Look how often Bush mentions 9/11 to scare people into believing the war in Iraq is a good thing.
2006-11-29 01:39:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
All liberals and dems do not want to reinstate the draft.
A rep from NY is promoting the idea. Why? He believes the burden of fighting the war of terror is falling disproportionately on the poor, the poorly educated, and minorities.
Why does he believe this? Because there are many individuals who join the military because they have very few options otherwise. Military service was seen (pre-9.11) a way to receive training, benefits, job experience and money for college.
2006-11-29 01:39:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by bookmom 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Why, you Republicans unwilling to serve your Master Bush? Dont want to "win" the Iraq war by sacrificing yourselves or your children toward this Great Cause, thereby creating a Legacy for your beloved Leader Bush? Isn't your unwillingness to serve and sacrifice yourselves and your children unpatirotic?
They say a Liberal is a Conservative who has been drafted. Sounds like this is confirmation of that quote.
2006-11-29 01:42:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I`m glad to see you using your brain now and asking a real question. It is because Bush has got so much crap started that now who knows what will happen in our future. We will have to finish stuff he started so our military must get prepared. There are millions of those rag heads over there we need to be able to compete with man power when IRAN finally comes out of the closet and shows it`s true colors.
2006-11-29 01:41:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why Matt you really make my point today you are a true blue Republican except when it come to serving and fighting in this war that your wonderful President has gotten us into.Oh! you are 100% for the war as long as you or any other Republican don't have to fight. Hypocrite!
2006-11-29 04:48:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pamela V 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you mean liberals and democrats as a whole, they don't. There is a very small minority that proposed that, and the congressional leadership has already announced that its not going to happen.
2006-11-29 01:44:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gerty 4
·
2⤊
0⤋