Dec 30, 2002 6:47 AM
|I wonder if anyone else saw this article on CNN.com? Apparently Charles Rangle wants to re-institute the Draft. He's not shy about his motives which include bringing more awareness to the urge to leap to war using "other's" kids to fight. I'm just curious how far this will go. Is America interested in this subject? From a practical standpoint, do we need a draft?
Dec 30, 2002 7:07 AM
|A real high percentage of our national leaders today were "prime" draftable age during Viet Nam. What percentage of them went? During Viet Nam, everybody pretty well knew that a National Guard serial number stood for "not going." That's not true today.|
|Follow-up question: Should a draft include women, too?||cory|
Dec 30, 2002 8:43 AM
|I've a Vietnam vet with a draft-age son and daughter, and I don't want either one to go--but if the draft were reinstated, I can't think of a single reason women shouldn't be included. I don't want my daughter in combat, but I don't want my son in combat, either. So why one and not the other? Or if you can't stomach the idea of women being blown up (which is no fun for men, either, by the way), then why not draft them for non-combat jobs to free men to go kill people?|
|It seems foolish to me,||TJeanloz|
Dec 30, 2002 9:38 AM
|The argument seems wrong at it's core- we have a volunteer military, we aren't sending people, against their will, into combat. We are sending people to do their job, which happens to involve the possiblity of death. We ask policemen to be on the streets every day. We ask firemen to stand ready at all times. Rangle is basing his argument on the fact that nobody in the Army wants to go to war- which I hope is the case, but it is their job to go to war nonetheless.
I don't see that we need a draft, from a manpower perspective, and it seems silly to have one in place as a deterrant.
|I don't understand, either||DougSloan|
Dec 30, 2002 10:57 AM
|Do we have a shortage of military personnel? If not, why even consider a draft?
From what I heard, the recruiting offices have been overwhelmed with new applicants more than eager to go fight. If so, this seems like a non-issue.
Dec 31, 2002 6:58 AM
|Charly Rangle is a non-issue. He is New York's Bill Clinton. (wait a minute, maybe Hillary is New Your's Bill Clinton) He and Chuck Shummer are a disgrace to all Americans. Whether he wants a draft or anything else is not news-worthy. I call for his resignation based on his being a swarthy-looking bastard!|
Dec 31, 2002 9:43 AM
|If you're going to diss the guy with quotes like "He and Chuck Shummer are a disgrace to all Americans" please give us (me) some reasons why. If you're angle is that he's using this to politicize his views I'd agree that he's suspect (is this any way to legitimately debate the Iraq issue?) but with that type of statement it sounds like you have more to offer.
|Lighten up Eyebob||Alpedhuez55|
Dec 31, 2002 3:32 PM
|BT, you need to lighten up a bit and get a sense of humor. I think the comment of resignation based on being a swarthy looking bastard was kind of funny. Look at his picture. How can you trust anyone who would wear that tie an matching pocket square. And that hair, I bet the EPA has to be called in to wash out the brylcream ;)
Rangle may be on to something there though. I have a new mission for Rangle, He thinks our income taxes are too low. Why doesn't he file a bill to eliminate the income tax.
When you have someone making a silly argument like that of Rangle's, sometimes it is best to attack it with humor. That's why conservatives understand Rush Limbaugh and liberals let him get under their skin.
|Lighten up Eyebob||eyebob|
Jan 1, 2003 6:54 AM
|Rangle is over-the-top but that's not to completely discount his arguments is it? My point (which you seem to be missing) has nothing to do with me getting a sense of humor (but it's interesting that you seem to fall back on that same vein when responding to me)but to actually listen to what folks say and see if it holds water. What's the point of making fun of him? How does that further an argument? Read the post 2 above mine. I'm just asking that we all (or just me if no one else is following along) be given proof when you (or anyone else) take shots at anyone. Why is he a disgrace? Are facts too much to ask for?
PS Your Bob Backlund quote on another thread was indeed funny.
|Hi, me again.||53T|
Jan 2, 2003 7:56 AM
|I'm from NYC, I know Charlie Rangles background. I know who Twana Brawley is, I know who Alton Maddax is, we all know who Al Sharpton is. I know people inside the NYC campane finance beureau. I have had my windshield washed by every form of human refuse on many West side street corners during the Dinkins administration.
Just because this guy is a Congressman doesn't mean he is an upstanding citizen. He's a bum, pure and simple. He has bought nothing but problems for NYC. He has fattened himself at the public trough for his entire life.
In summary, we would all be better off without him. His comments on the draft are not news-worthy.
BTW, its OK to not have a sence of humor sometimes. We should be able to debate issues seriously. Rangle is not a serious issue, however.