Rangel wants women to be drafted

Rangel wants women to be drafted

Posted in the Keavy Forum

womens rights

Morehead, KY

#1 Feb 15, 2013
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) on Friday said he plans to introduce legislation that would bring back the military draft and extend it to women for the first time.

Rangel, who has pushed for years to bring back the draft, said the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat means that they too should register for the Selective Service.

"Now that women can serve in combat they should register for the Selective Service alongside their male counterparts," Rangel said in a statement. "Reinstating the draft and requiring women to register for the Selective Service would compel the American public to have a stake in the wars we fight as a nation. We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm's way."

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed an order rescinding the ban on women serving in combat units last month, potentially opening up as many as 237,000 positions to female service members.

The move raised a number of policy issues, including whether women will now be required to register with the Selective Service. The Pentagon is required to report on how changing the ban effects the constitutionality of the registration being males only.

In an interview on MSNBC, Rangel said the draft should be reinstated because the majority of Americans make "no real sacrifice" when the country goes to war.

http://thehill.com/video/house/283387-rangel-... -
Eli

Manchester, KY

#2 Feb 15, 2013
Rangel is smart. Wasn't it Rangel that tried to institute the draft under Bush? Always the democrats with this draft issue? The democrats want to dilute the conservative vote of the military. Getting all the scum drafted would help the democrats. Endanger all the good men and women serving by choice but damned it would be stylish.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#3 Feb 15, 2013
Something you anti-women fruitloops haven't realized ..... with women now being able to voluntarily sign up for combat roles it expands the voluntary recruitment base. That greatly reduces the chance of a draft ever being needed or ever happening. It cuts down on the possibility of 'your' sons and daughters ever being drafted if they don't wish to be in the military in time of war.

As a side note, the DOD or Pentagon has no power over the draft laws. That has to be changed through Congress. Why not have us under the Selective Service system? I see nothing wrong in it. If you guys which are whiny little complainers.

If a draft ever begins again, which I don't see happening, we will go. We will not take off for France (like Romney did) or draft dodge like your gun hero Ted Nugent (he admitted in 1977 in an interview that he took steps to avoid the Vietnam draft).

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#4 Feb 15, 2013
It's you guys which are whiny little complainers.

Typed the wrong word and put 'if'. But I think you got the idea anyway.
Eli

Manchester, KY

#5 Feb 15, 2013
Pardon me? I never said anything anti-female. As matter of fact lady, I made it a point to distinguish those serving patriotically from those serving under bond. I clearly stated both men and women.

You have a severe problem if you must see a dividing line in every statement. Good little indoctrinated soldier.
Bth

East Bernstadt, KY

#6 Feb 15, 2013
Eli wrote:
Pardon me? I never said anything anti-female. As matter of fact lady, I made it a point to distinguish those serving patriotically from those serving under bond. I clearly stated both men and women.
You have a severe problem if you must see a dividing line in every statement. Good little indoctrinated soldier.
It was how you posted the title to your thread,He wanted to make women face the draft.Go back and state it right,he wants to make men and women face the draft.If it had been posted that way,i wouldn't have even read it.
lmao

London, KY

#7 Feb 15, 2013
Eli wrote:
Pardon me? I never said anything anti-female. As matter of fact lady, I made it a point to distinguish those serving patriotically from those serving under bond. I clearly stated both men and women.
You have a severe problem if you must see a dividing line in every statement. Good little indoctrinated soldier.
lmao. You thought women would be against it. It looks like they ain't.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#8 Feb 15, 2013
Bth wrote:
<quoted text>It was how you posted the title to your thread,He wanted to make women face the draft.Go back and state it right,he wants to make men and women face the draft.If it had been posted that way,i wouldn't have even read it.
TY. Exactly. The moment I read the thread title I went on the offensive. I still believe it was intended to down us (concerning equality) and wanting equal options in the military. Why else word it just centering upon us in a way which sounded adverse?

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#9 Feb 15, 2013
Btw, although I oppose restarting a draft (for anyone ..... male or female) due to it being unnecessary. We have a good volunteer base and a high enough population that drafts are no longer needed. With us (women) now filling combat unit roles the need for a draft is reduced far more.

But I know why Rep. Charles Rangel is wanting a draft. He's the Representative for some of the worst parts of New York City. His area has one of the most horrendous teen and street gang problems in America, and I think this is his chosen solution for it. I disagree with it, but I understand his motives.
womens rights

Morehead, KY

#10 Feb 15, 2013
Bth wrote:
<quoted text>It was how you posted the title to your thread,He wanted to make women face the draft.Go back and state it right,he wants to make men and women face the draft.If it had been posted that way,i wouldn't have even read it.
Excuse me but it was I who posted the article "and it's title". If you don't like the title you should attack the news organization that reported it and gave it the title, not other posters who comment on it. You sound like a pettish child.
Walter

Louisville, KY

#11 Feb 16, 2013
Reinstating the Military Draft
by Walter E. Williams
Click here to Print |

In 2003, Senator Fritz Hollings (D. SC) and Representative Charles Rangel (D. NY) introduced bills calling for reinstatement of the military draft. A far more descriptive term for the military draft is government confiscation of labor services, but keeping with the spirit of euphemistic obfuscation, I'll stick to the term draft. Let's first ask why would a draft be needed in the first place.

Rest assured that if the military offered a compensation package of say $50,000 to $100,000 a year, they could get all the soldiers they wanted. Thus, lesson number one is that whenever there's a draft you know that the wage is too low to get a sufficient number of people to voluntarily supply their labor services. Senator Fritz Hollings said, "One way to avoid a lot more wars is to institute the draft." That's a statement that reflects gross economic ignorance. In terms of incentives it produces the opposite effect. Why? The draft is used because the wage the military offers isn't high enough to get what's deemed as a sufficient number of people to volunteer. Here's my no-brainer question: under which scenario is war cheaper for the Defense Department - the volunteer army or the draft? Obviously, it's the draft since the Defense Department doesn't have to pay the higher wages to get men to sign up voluntarily. Since the Defense Department has a smaller manpower expense, the draft disguises the true cost of war, and one would expect more not less military adventurism.

Waging war requires much more than soldiers. You need tanks, bombs, bullets and aircraft. Have you heard a call to draft $15 million F-15 fighter jets or $4.3 million M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks? I haven't. The reason is that the government pays the kind of prices whereby producers voluntarily supply these products. Of course, if the Pentagon was willing to pay McDonnell Douglas only $5 million for an F-15 and General Dynamics only $1 million for a tank, it would have to draft (read confiscate) jets and tanks.

Does one have a duty to defend his country? I say yes. In order to field one soldier, I'm guessing you need hundreds of civilian workers to supply him with boots, food, bullets, tanks, jets, medical equipment and thousands of other items needed in war in addition to soldiers. Thus, if you're engaged in producing these items you are participating in the defense of your country.

Being employed producing the hardware for the defense of our country need not be voluntary. The government could send us draft notices ordering us to report for work at General Dynamic's Texas track vehicle facility at $400 a month. If the government did this would you call it a draft or slave labor? Not to worry, the Defense Department offers attractive contracts to firms like McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics and they in turn offer attractive wages to employees and thus volunteerism gets the right number of workers to make the right number of jets and tanks.

The Defense Department might argue that a draft is needed because it would be too expensive to pay market wages to get the desired number of soldiers. They're right so far as the military budget is concerned but wrong when it comes to military's true cost to the nation. The true cost of a soldier in the army is the value of what he could have produced, and society must sacrifice, were he not in the army - what economists call "opportunity cost". Even if the military paid the soldier nothing, the nation must forego what the soldier could have produced were he not in the military.

National defense is an important government function; for rational decision-making we mustn't permit concealment of its cost through measures like the draft.
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#12 Feb 16, 2013
Kennedy, Johnson and Roosevelt all started the conscription of men with the draft.

All Democrats.
repubs hate

London, KY

#13 Feb 16, 2013
HelpMe Gov wrote:
Kennedy, Johnson and Roosevelt all started the conscription of men with the draft.
All Democrats.
Maybe they're more patriotic.
Bruce

Manchester, KY

#14 Feb 16, 2013
What's the big deal? It's only those between 18 and 25 years of age. Just like the men have to register now.

Bruce.
Bruce

Manchester, KY

#15 Feb 16, 2013
DOD gets too much money. The cut in pay for servicemembers was a stroke of pure genius for democrats. Having people forced to serve at this reduced rate beats paying them anywhere close to what a Chicago cop makes now as incentive to serve.

These savings alone would allow more money for new entitlements for the less fortunate of society.

How about something called the CSA Citizen Service of America. An alternative to military service. A place where young men and women can be brought around to our way of thinking. Afterall the schools can't be expected to do it all.

Bruce.
Bth

London, KY

#16 Feb 16, 2013
womens rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me but it was I who posted the article "and it's title". If you don't like the title you should attack the news organization that reported it and gave it the title, not other posters who comment on it. You sound like a pettish child.
Yeah, give me that link to where it says[like you did]that they were trying to start the draft for just women.I am waiting.

Since: Oct 12

Rock Forever

#17 Feb 16, 2013
If it's cool with the women if they get on selective service what's the problem?
womens rights

Morehead, KY

#18 Feb 16, 2013
Bth wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, give me that link to where it says[like you did]that they were trying to start the draft for just women.I am waiting.
I didn't say anything at all. I just posted the article and it's title. Do you have a problem understanding and interpreting what you read?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cheapest divorce attorney 12 min no name 3
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 4 hr LMS 148,314
dem VA gov going to jail ? 6 hr Skie 9
Daily Bible Verse (Oct '12) 6 hr Walk with God 1,210
shannon phony veterans story 6 hr thomas 1
suboxone (Jan '12) 7 hr attckxtians 33
corporate that brought clinton 7 hr thomas 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages