uh... yeah... the news made a pretty big deal out of it...
but if you heard "crazy" (and I say that being a liberal mind you) Charlie Rangel talk about the bill... you would know it's all just more political posturing... and a little annoying to me personally...
in other words... it was a publicity stunt... that seemed to annoy more people than do anything else...
2007-03-10 15:39:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Interesting. Especially some of the subtler provisions.
For example, the bill only applies "during wartime". Which means an actual war declared by Congress, not an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which is what we have in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But even if kids aren't actually being drafted, the perceived threat of being drafted would cause a serious political backlash against further military action, just like it did the last time was had a draft.
2007-03-10 15:34:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Pretty much everybody who reads the newspapers or watches TV news would know it. Rangel has been doing this for a while now, trying to make the point to both parties that nobody seems to be sacrificing anything for this "war against terrorism" except our voluntary army. Maybe if Congress' sons and daughters were facing the same danger, they would think more carefully about getting in messes in the first place.
2007-03-10 15:46:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Erwin B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I knew! Do I win something? Reinstating the draft is not a new idea. Rangel believes that a draft would make it less likely for us to become involved in a future war if the well to do had their children serving in the military.
2007-03-10 15:34:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
interior the U.S. we've the draft whilst not sufficient human beings are signing up for the militia. At this factor and time interior the election technique i'd think of that the two would placed a bill up for the draft, it might provide up the election of their guy for president. yet on the comparable time i think of it does not harm all babies to serve 2 years for their country that they experience so loose in. it might enable them to do something for their country, and learn what to do in-case of a real hassle in this country, like an entire scale war.
2016-12-18 10:30:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good for them! Our youth are OUT of control...I believe it would be in our nations BEST interest if EVERY person was forced to serve 2 yrs minimum right out of high school. This would cut back on the crime rates by increasing respect for authority. I realize not every one can make it thru the physcological aspects of basic training, so there would have to be a choice trade school, college or military. Minimum 2 yrs at one of them.
It'll never happen, we have so many ppl signing up for our military the air force is cutting back 40,000 jobs! But it's a thought...
2007-03-10 15:37:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by luv2bake 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
ONE Dem introduced a bill. Thanks for actually posting a valid link.
It'll be interesting to see where this all goes. I figured it was just a matter of time.
REVISION: Apparently it's at least the FIFTH consecutive year in a row Rangel's introduced this legislation. Doesn't seem to be going anywhere, does it?
2007-03-10 15:32:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
What? For all of Rangels screaming against the war which is now volunteer he wants to force our young people over? Now if that isn't hypocritical! I know they've been talking about it.
2007-03-10 15:48:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Brianne 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Politically, Rangel is a genius. If this had been passed(even if Bush vetoed it) the draft cards burn and Bush gets blamed for it anyway.
"You can't force civic virtue into someone who doesn't want it"
-Robert A. Heinlein,
Starship Troopers
(paraphrasing)
2007-03-10 15:39:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by travis_a_duncan 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I knew he introduced it, but I don't think it was popular with NO ONE! Not the House Ways & Means Committee or any other congress person and definitely not with the American citizens.
2007-03-10 15:34:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by joeslam 2
·
0⤊
0⤋