2007-03-10 13:55:02 · 17 answers · asked by howard h 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
They won't introduce it now, it would actually mean something.
2007-03-10 14:00:36 · update #1
It's all politics. They figure if they can do enough to make the war unfavorable to the largest amount of people, they'll be able to push through their legislation that turns it into another politically charged Vietnam. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to see the consequences of their actions -- supposing they actually manage to reinstate the draft? What does that mean for all the people who will subsequently be pressed into service? It's a dangerous political ploy, and they either don't understand the consequences or they simply do not care.
2007-03-10 14:07:22 · answer #1 · answered by Richard S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the U.S. we have the draft when not enough people are signing up for the military. At this point and time in the election process I would think that either would put a bill up for the draft, it would stop the election of their man for president.
Yet at the same time I think it would not hurt all young people to serve 2 years for their country that they feel so free in. It would allow them to do something for their country, and learn what to do in-case of a real hardship in this country, like a full scale war.
2007-03-10 14:51:19 · answer #2 · answered by allen w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one Democrat that started it said that it would make people think twice about going to war the next time. This is insane cause when the next war comes the president has the power to avoid the draft or reinstate it so how will that prevent us from going to war?! And what do they think will happen now?
2007-03-10 13:59:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why are you bringing up 2003 political issues in 2007?
Charles Rangel, a Democrat, introduced it as a measure to draw attention to the disproportional number of minorites and low-income persons serving in the military, and as I recall it went nowhere.
2007-03-10 14:24:21 · answer #4 · answered by hgherron2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose is not to actually start a draft. The purpose is to make sure people understand the irresponsibility going to Iraq without a plan was. To win in Iraq, sooner or later there will have to be a draft. Everyone with half a brain knows that. Everyone with half a brain knows we didn't need to go there in the first place.
2007-03-10 14:04:15 · answer #5 · answered by JJB 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I suspect that it was a straw man and that they were not serious about it. In any event, a draft would not solve the military's manpower problem: the services need skilled people who can maintain and use today's complex weapons systems, and that means hiring people and retaining them for a long time, not bringing in amateurs off the street for a couple of years.
2007-03-10 14:00:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
About time the Democrats did something right. The draft should never have been eliminated. In fact 2 year military service should be mandatory immediately after high school unless you are approved to enter college.
2007-03-10 14:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Not all Democrats want a draft. It's just a few lunatics that do.
2007-03-10 13:58:07 · answer #8 · answered by AL IS ON VACATION AND HAS NO PIC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For those who do not believe that the Democrats have introduced a draft bill, well here is the Press release on the House webpage janurary 11th 2007.
I guess that should shut them up !!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough proof for you CORAGRYPH ????
2007-03-10 15:22:49 · answer #9 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Libs say "that ol' Charlie...he's this manner of kidder." Or "That information is oooold information,. yet they may be screaming bloody homicide if a Republican proposed bringing back the draft. no you will deny it. seem what they did interior the final election. They just about ran around screaming "SHE'S A WITCH !!! BURN HER !!!".
2016-10-18 02:00:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋