The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 01-08-2003, 02:41 PM

The Hon. Rep. Rangel is a Rt. Hon. Fckng. Moron for having floated this.

- The military doesn't want it. They have learned that volunteers get them *real* soldiers, *better* soldiers, the kind that want to be there and want to serve. Strengthening the military at no cost to taxpayers? Good idea.

- The draft is political. Rangel claims to be on the side of the poor and minorities who make up the majority of the armed forces these days. This point is a loser when you consider the amount of political pressure levied to prevent the haves from participating in Vietnam, and the look of the resulting forces. I don't think the draft led to egalitarianism; if you were Dan Quayle's dad you could still pull strings and get your kid into the National Guard or whatever else you could do to get an exemption.

Furthermore, if the poor and minorities are opting for military service, and you want to change that system to possibly prevent them from doing so, how can you claim to be doing it all on behalf of the poor and minorities?

- Everybody knows it's just an anti-war gambit which makes it all the more reprehensible. If Rangel disapproves of the war, he should pull out all the stops to prevent it -- all the stops, that is, except those that would be more destructive than war, which this one is.

Rangel treats the electorate with complete disrespect. He feels they would be more anti-war if their children were on the front line. Never mind that the parents of soldiers represent a very small part of the electorate, that conscription never prevented the US from going to war before, that a charged electorate will send a conscripted generation to war anyway for stupid reasons.

Furthermore Rangel ignores the possibility that the voters would elect to go to Iraq anyway in order to protect their sons and daughters from possibly being blown up at home. The guy is from NY and should really understand that notion.

- War is not what Rangel thinks it is. If the people don't want any lives lost, war can now be fought by predator drones and precision guided missile. Eventually people have to go in, but one could theoretically "contain" Saddam for a pretty long time just taking potshots. Or one could simply flatten Baghdad before sending in troops. Thus Rangel's concept leads to increased politicization of military use and actually causes GREATER death and destruction -- nice goin'!

Meanwhile, the general thinking is that even if WMDs are used on coalition forces this time, the coalition casualties will be less than a thousand. Knock wood.

The US military long ago adjusted to modern political reality, and Rangel doesn't know that. His little trial balloon will go nowhere, or he will be dealt with in Cynthia McKinney fashion: he will be voted out in the next primary. In serious times, when the shit hits the fan, there's no room for idiots like this.

01-08-2003, 02:41 PM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The Hon. Rep. Rangel is a Rt. Hon. Fckng. Moron for having floated this. - The military doesn't want it. They have learned that volunteers get them real soldiers, better soldiers, the kind that want to be there and want to serve. Strengthening the military at no cost to taxpayers? Good idea. - The draft is political. Rangel claims to be on the side of the poor and minorities who make up the majority of the armed forces these days. This point is a loser when you consider the amount of political pressure levied to prevent the haves from participating in Vietnam, and the look of the resulting forces. I don't think the draft led to egalitarianism; if you were Dan Quayle's dad you could still pull strings and get your kid into the National Guard or whatever else you could do to get an exemption. Furthermore, if the poor and minorities are opting for military service, and you want to change that system to possibly prevent them from doing so, how can you claim to be doing it all on behalf of the poor and minorities? - Everybody knows it's just an anti-war gambit which makes it all the more reprehensible. If Rangel disapproves of the war, he should pull out all the stops to prevent it -- all the stops, that is, except those that would be more destructive than war, which this one is. Rangel treats the electorate with complete disrespect. He feels they would be more anti-war if their children were on the front line. Never mind that the parents of soldiers represent a very small part of the electorate, that conscription never prevented the US from going to war before, that a charged electorate will send a conscripted generation to war anyway for stupid reasons. Furthermore Rangel ignores the possibility that the voters would elect to go to Iraq anyway in order to protect their sons and daughters from possibly being blown up at home. The guy is from NY and should really understand that notion. - War is not what Rangel thinks it is. If the people don't want any lives lost, war can now be fought by predator drones and precision guided missile. Eventually people have to go in, but one could theoretically "contain" Saddam for a pretty long time just taking potshots. Or one could simply flatten Baghdad before sending in troops. Thus Rangel's concept leads to increased politicization of military use and actually causes GREATER death and destruction -- nice goin'! Meanwhile, the general thinking is that even if WMDs are used on coalition forces this time, the coalition casualties will be less than a thousand. Knock wood. The US military long ago adjusted to modern political reality, and Rangel doesn't know that. His little trial balloon will go nowhere, or he will be dealt with in Cynthia McKinney fashion: he will be voted out in the next primary. In serious times, when the shit hits the fan, there's no room for idiots like this.