Sunday, November 19, 2006

Bring Back Draft says Democrat Rangel


The draft would be re-instated if Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., gets his way. Rangel, the House Ways and Means Committee incoming chairman, said today that young men and women, upon turning 18 yrs of age, would be required to sign-up for a future military draft. He proposed such a scheme in 2003 and again in 2006, which was immediately attributed the the Bush administration. This time there can be no doubt - the Democrat leadership favors a draft despite their protestations to the current war situation.

In true Democrat fuzzy logic, Rangel tells the Washington Times, he believes his plan would give pause to politicians wanting to enter future wars. Rangel seems to think politicians would be more careful with other people's children if those children were drafted and trained to kill. This flies in the face of history. The American Civil War was fought with conscripts. World Wars I and II were fought with conscripts. The Korean and VietNam Wars were fought with conscripts. Charles Rangel served in the Korean Conflict from 1948 to 1952 with the U.S. Army. He was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart (Rangel did not shoot himself ala John Kerry.)


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's 2003 proposal covered people from 18-26 years of age. The Rangel draft measure proposed this year would have drafted men and women 18-42 years old. Both measures went nowhere in Congress, but got a lot of airtime and print condemning Bush for re-instating the draft which was a complete lie, a lie no Democrat did anything to dissuade.

Polls have repeatedly shown that about 70% of Americans oppose any re-instatement of the draft. Government officials in the Bush Administration say they have no intention to rely upon military conscription again. That doesn't seem to mean much to Rep Charles Rangel. The fired Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld told a Congressional committee in June 2005

there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back.
Rep Charles Rangel may intend to be more careful with the nations young, at least as careful as he will be with the citizen's money as chairman of the House tax-writing committee. Rangel says the U.S. military is being stretched and strained by our overseas commitments. However, he still manages to leave open the option of greater stress to the military and nation.

If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft.
What does Mr. Rangel mean here? Is he saying that this nation under Democrat administration may attack Iran and North Korea. Neither nation has attacked to United States and neither poses any clear and present danger. Why would a high ranking official of the Democrat Party suggest forceful action against Iran or North Korea? It couldn't possibly be that both nations are ruled by murderous tyrants the world can do without. Nor, could it be because both countries allegedly possess nuclear weapons (i.e., WMD) for which we have no absolute proof, only "best intelligence", nor could it be that Bush has been right all along. Rangel is setting a political trap that is just too obvious. Rangeal baits his trap:
I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.

This just shows once again the Democrat objections to the War in Iraq are simply because George Bush, a Republican, is in charge. Rangel doesn't give a tinker's dam about the troops. It's a no points situation for Democrats not to lead a war. There is no reason to build a large military force without any purpose other than the spurious reason that large armies of other people's children are less likely to be used. Large armies are always used, otherwise they are seen for what they are - toothless tigers of a nation in decline.






The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

19 comments:

mudkitty said...

What's the matter with you guys! Can't you see this is waaaaaaw! How we gonna fight them over there when there's nobody left who's willing to volunteer? And how are we going to even out the sacrifice of the parents who send their kids to waaaarw (pronounce it like Churchill, kids.) Fair is fair.

And before you all get really hysterical, know that this is a symbolic gesture. Too many people who aren't well versed in civics don't understand the nature of the symbollic gesture.

Indigo Red said...

It's a volunteer military. That means parents are not sending their kids off to war (as pronounced by normal Americans.) Even Rangel says in the referenced article the US military is very representative of American society. If anything, it's over-repped by the educated and financially stable (middle-class and up.)

Besides, the point is that the anti-war party, the Democrat, is advocating conscription and expanding war. I can't see anything more fair than volunteers. Drafts are inherently unfair as they do not allow for personal choice, the bedrock liberty of all free societies. Equal treatment does not equal fair.

mudkitty said...

Equal treatment does not equal fair...could you futher extrapolate? Because, I may be thick as a plank, but somehow I don't think that statement came out the way you meant it.

Indigo Red said...

No, that's exactly what I meant. And the reverse is also true - fair treatment is not synonomous with equal treatment. No two people nor events are exactly the same. Both must be judged within their respective contexts. What may be fair to me may not be equalization for you.

mudkitty said...

But that's the equivilant of saying everything is anything...everything is nothing. The snowflake...we're all different. What about standards?

Are you a relativist?

mudkitty said...

Anyway, Rangels is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of the sort meant to spark the kind of debate we're having here.

The American people will not put up with a draft at this time, for this private war.

Indigo Red said...

No. I'm a contextualist. Swiss researchers have found two snowflakes that are exactly the same...but, that is neither here nor there.

Standards are absolutely needed and should be relied upon, but not to the point of excluding any reasoning whatsoever.

Example:

1) A mother kills her three children, shoots all three in the head because her new boyfriend doesn't want the chldren around.

2) A mother kills her three children, drowns all three because she believes they are possessed by Satan.

Both mothers are tried in court and found guilty. One is sentenced to prison for life. The other is sentenced to a state mental health facility until doctors deem her well enough to return to society.

The sentences are certainly not the same. Are the sentences fair? Are the sentences equal?

Note: Both cases are real.

Tom C said...

As the spouse of someone that worked in forensic psyciatry I learned that I don't know shit about everything. Context is everything.

Indigo Red said...

Thanks, Tom!

In context, shit can be manure, an organic fertilizer used for growing crops to feed the worlds contextual terrorists.

mudkitty said...

That's cuz they were twin snowflakes - same dna...pardon me, if I find that to be an urban myth.

*****

As for the murders: one is insane, and one is evil...there's a difference. That's why state of mind is so importand to murder crimes (and all crimes) and for that reason we have what's known as "degrees" of murder...murder 1, 2, and 3; pluse man 1, 2, and 3. It all goes to state of mind.

Just one more reason, btw - I know I digress, but there's a connection, people follow me; when people say "hate crimes" are really thought crimes, it's complete rightwing BS in capital letters. So what if it's a thought crime? Conspiracy to murder is a thought crime too, even if you don't pull the trigger. (I know, I digress, but your examples were digressions as well.)

Indigo Red said...

Hate crimes are thought crimes. Hate crimes have been the product of DEMOCRAT lawmaking, not rightwing (Republican.) PC is completely a liberal thing.

mudkitty said...

Red, you (deliberatly?) missed the point. All crimes are thought crimes, except for degree. Hate crimes are there own catagory, no? Don't be coy.

mudkitty said...

Premeditation means thought.

Indigo Red said...

And you are deliberately not answering the question.

mudkitty asked: Equal treatment does not equal fair...could you futher extrapolate?

And I answered with an example of equal v fair. Then finished by questioning whether the two similar crimes were equal and fair in vis a vis the verdicts.

Stop beating around every bush you can find and just answer the question.

Were the verdicts fair? Were the verdicts equal?

mudkitty said...

But I don't think the examples were equal. That's the thing.

As for the verdicts...apples and oranges. One was insane, and one was evil. Not knowing the cases inside out, just going by the un-equal examples, I'd still say the verdicts were fair. And how often do psychotic women who kill their children get let out of prison hospitals? Almost never! THAT is the reality. It's not really fair to make your point by subtlely trying to scare people about something that rarely happens. Sure, you could search the internet, and come up with a few examples of miscarriages of justice...sure you could. But that doesn't prove the rule. It's really just alarmism.

The only time psychotics get let out of the hospitals is when republicans (like Reagan) cut medicaid.

Indigo Red said...

I asked no question as to the mental state of the mothers involved. Each killed their children. PERIOD! You asked only for clarification of fair and equal.

"But I don't think the examples were equal."

That's exactly the point. The verdicts were not EQUAL. But, were the verdicts . And you say the verdicts were fair.

So, we agree that equal is not synonymous with fair.


The draft:

1) 22yr old man, single father of one. Gang member recently out of the gang to raise his child. Child's mother dead from drug overdose. Father is makikng a living at minimum wage job because he doesn't have a HS education, but is progressing and doing well as a father.

2) 22 yr old university student, genius IQ rating, from a wealthy old money family. He is working on MS in Molecular Biology leading toward Doctorate. Ambition is to find cure for cancer and other deadly diseases.

The draft is re-instituted and is to be applied equally and fairly to all men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Both candidates are well within the age group and both are physically and mentally fit. Do you take both or choose between them. Which one gets drafted?

Remember the reintroduction of the draft is a liberal Democrat idea. The intent being that poor, middle-class, and the rich sacrifice equally.

mudkitty said...

The point is; the LAW asks the question as to mental states. These are legal questions.

Are you being deliberatly obtuse to illustrait the debate, you devil?

You are equateing "equal" with "same"...that's your problem.

Instead you should be asking if the verdicts were "just."

Indigo Red said...

equal:

Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

Mathematics Being the same or identical to in value.

Until we are speaking the same (equal) language and you get a dictionary, I see no purpose answering your comments. You obviously are not reading enough of what has been writen here to follow the plotline as I've already asked both if the verdicts were equal and were the verdicts fair (just.) Neither question could you answer without dissembling.

Your arguments amount to nothing more than 'nuh-uh' as children will respond to something they don't agree with. Enough is enough.

mudkitty said...

Same is not equal in terms of justice, neither in spirit or letter. There are degrees of murder in law. Surely you're not denying that?

Perhaps you could reread my posts in the same spirit you suggest I reread yours, rather than insult my intellegence? Or would that be violating the rightwing double standard?

Are we talking about the legal system, or are we just talking about your desires and fantacies of justice? Cuz if you want to go into the fantacy realm, than you would simply shudder at what I, have in store for murderers. My friend and his family were murdered last New Year's Day, and you have no idea...