Uncle Charlie Wants You!(Rangel is wrong!)

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 25, 2006 | staff

[kellynla]

ping

[OldFriend]

Part and parcel of the MSM attempt to drum up anti-war hysteria.

IOW, give aid and comfort to our enemies.

[LongElegantLegs]

H ha! I got into this with the father-in-law on Thanksgiving...He was trying to explain how it as only fair for rich, white people to have to serve too...
I won. :-D

[duckman]

I just don't see Charlie's argument that the poor are being preyed upon by recruiters. I thought service to the country was voluntary. Besides there are many career opportunities offered in the military, which will help the vets prepare for life in the job market. Opportunities which may not be available in the poor areas. IMO

[GAB-1955]

If you read the article, you would find out the Wall Street Journal is AGAINST conscription. They point out the military volunteer is better-educated than the average person, and comes out of the middle class and is more motivated. The military wants volunteers, not draftees. They also note that Rangel's motivation is a poor one; the U.S. must be willing to show it can use force.

I have never heard the Wall Street Journal being part of the leftist MSM. That was a foolish thing to think.

[bushfamfan]

Didn't Kerry try to frighten voters back in '04 that Bush would have to bring back the draft? Let the Demonrats talk draft because Hillary is going to be the worst morale if she gets anywhere near being CIC. We are in bad times and seems as if the Demonrats think treason is fine and talking trash about our troops is a-ok. Let them serve in such circumstances and play patty cake with terrorists.

[OldFriend]

I was commenting on Rangel's posturing and the MSM promoting his posturing.

[sgtbono2002]

Flimsy evidence presented to the Congress.

How did you vote Charlie?

Did Charles Rangel for the war in Iraq on Flimsy evidence?

[sgtbono2002]

If Hillary becomes President I can think of no better reason to bring back the draft. No one with any intelligence would want to be in the military with a Clinton as President.

[Kewlhand`tek]

folks, 1 or 2 things need to happen. 1)A significant attack on US soil, we'll get more volunteers. 2) a draft before it happens.
Now I serve and I am not too found of having a wiccan who would rather attend anti american rallies in Sanfransico but we need more troups if we are going to continue to fight wars this way, with our hands tied. No we don't need a draft if we just used more force but as you see the top brass and the politicians wont let us use every resource possible. Looks like my chances on a 2nd tour to Iraq are very high.

[KingArthur305]

What a lie that only poor minorities are taking the brunt of the load serving the military, and that somehow they have no other choices. If anything the military is the best experience an inner city kid can have. Hell, we need to get more young jobless man in from the "hood" and give them some good honorable experience and maybe things would improve in places like Harlem.

Earth to Rangel: Dont mix in class envy politics with our troops sir!!

[Dutch Boy]

Rangel is only against the war because Bush is for it. Did Rangel call for the draft when Clinton got into the Kosovo War? Bosnia?

BTW wouldn't it be sweet to watch the lefties squirm if a draft vote was only beaten by one vote? Could you imagine the herd of them running for Canada. The Blue states would start to look purple.

[BigLittle]

[Mo1]

Charlie Rangel is a political whore and he's only brining this up to fight against the WOT ..

Because the draft would not be used only for the Iraq war .. but ALL wars

Charlie wants to bring back the images of draft cards being burned and people turning against the military like in the 70's

Translation = Rangel is anti-military

[ANGGAPO]

Uncle Charlie has a head problem.

[SandRat]

Something else Charlie ain't saying is that you don't have to pay a draftee military as much as you do a volunteer military. A draftee military doesn't come with families so that cuts expenses too. A draftee military tends to be heavy on junior ranks and they cost less beginning to get another picture?

[supremedoctrine]

Rangel is suggesting a hypothesis that would undo the social/political evolution that has already occurred in the last 30 years: that we no longer have a draft. That this evolution cannot be discarded seems to have completely escaped him: he wants to hearken back to the "good old, bad old" days in order to make a completely irrelevant political point against Bush. He is truly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Yet , even though the Left categorically opposes this idea, it still seems a classic example of their thinking and their twisted logic.\

[ClaireSolt]

Congress is turning into a dog and pny show. Rangel gave us this, and then they adjourned without passing spending bills that were due 10/1.

[NonValueAdded]

What about Mr. Rangel's point that conscription would have made intervention in Iraq less likely? It's impossible to know, but this is a dangerous argument for the future in any case. The main reason for having an effective Army is to deter enemies by making them believe we have the will to fight if we must. Mr. Rangel is saying the U.S. needs a conscript Army precisely to show an adversary we'll never use it. This is a good way to tempt Iran, say, into provocations that could lead to larger conflicts in which we would have no choice but to fight.

Precisely.