Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Mark this: It is the Democrats who continue to call for a draft
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 30, 2007

John Murtha:
"I voted against the volunteer army."

"We ought to not have a select few who volunteer. I think everybody ought to be obligated to serve."

"I think [the draft is] absolutely needed."


Don't believe me ... watch it yourself:



Having served in both a draft military and the volunteer military, trust me, we don't want a draft military ever again. This is simply more radical egalitarianism which sounds good in sound bites but sucks in reality.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Have you noticed all those who are calling for a Draft are the same people who oppose the war. This is not really about bring back the Draft, it’s frightening those of Draft age with the threat of a Draft. The anti-war movement is a shadow of what it was during Vietnam. The most conspicuously absent from the movement are draft aged males. Faced with a sudden hot Eastern Draft on the back of their necks. These potential Draftees would have an incentive to oppose the war.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
I’ve been told by well-meaning people all my life that the nasty ol’ Republicans will bring back the draft and start a nuclear war.

Every presidential election, same story.

Odd that it never happens, and that Republicans never seem to propose bringing back the draft (probably because some of them actually have some idea about what the DoD wants).

Odder still that people still assure me that "they" are going to do it, in any case, despite any evidence.

Funny world, huh?
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
I was also one who began my service at the end of the "Draft" era and continued serving until I retired in 1996. I agree with you McQ, a Drafted military is the last situation I would ever want to see again. The only time I could ever see a Draft would have to be another world conflict such as World War Two. Nothing short of that could ever convince me of the need for a Draft.

I also grew up in the Draft age and I saw opposition for the war in the US start to peak only when the lottery began and deferments were discontinued. Up to that point Moms and Dads could keep little Johnny out of the Draft so long as they could keep him in school and he kept his grades up. Those grades became so important they would even cause a mini-scandal in the University of California system immediately after Viet Nam War when it was discovered 95% of all grades given in the UC system from 1970 - 1975 were B and above!

I also agree with you James. Murtha and company are so desperate for the attention of Draft-age young men (and their loving girlfriends) to fuel their anti-war rhetoric that they would throw the Military back into the age of the draft.

I think they must be feeling some heat after this last anti-war protest got upstaged by the "Gathering of Eagles" especially in the DC area. With all of their support and money and advertising and high profile attendance by the Cindy Sheehan crowd, the essentially word of mouth generated GOE counter protest gathered much more support than the anti-war crowd. I was there and can say there was no way the anti-war supporters outnumbered the GOE attendance. To say they were embarrassed would be an understatement. As a result I think they are regenerating this Draft angle in order to get that attention generated again.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
That’s exactly right James. The only reason most Democrats want the draft is for leverage in ending the war and making themselves look good instead of like a bunch of "cut and run" wimps. Right now the ranks of the military aren’t filled with a bunch of discontented youth who are serving against their will in Bush’s "illegal and immoral" war for oil and Halliburton. And because of this it’s like you say, there is no massive anti-war movement festering on the campuses.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
And because of this it’s like you say, there is no massive anti-war movement festering on the campuses.
But there is a growing anti-Sanjaya movement.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Agreeing with James also, and wondering why Murtha, Rangel and the others don’t mean to have young women registering as well. Murtha does keep saying in the clip that "everybody" should serve.

But either way, just the guys or coed, how do they intend to get the idea off the ground? The military doesn’t want it, people at large don’t want it — no one besides these cretinous congress-fixtures and the mopey ANSWER failures starved for attention wants it.

You know, I am starting to feel all nostalgic about riding people out on rails. Or, those days having been a bit before my time, cheated in any case for having missed what must have been a fittingly spectacular way of curtailing some presumptuous abuses of public trust.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Have you noticed all those who are calling for a Draft are the same people who oppose the war.
There’s a reason for that. If they can put more people under the threat of being sent off to war, there will be a larger and more vocal groundswell against the war.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
This "everybody oughtta be obligated to serve" thing is creepy (and how does he stay in office when he says things like that?!), and the "not just a select few" volunteers bit is wrong-headed, but on a bright note, the opposite message is continuing to sell well in movie theaters.

Anyway, calling for conscripts to be shipped to war shortly after saying you’re going to slowly bleed the military does speak to some cognitive dissonance.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
It isn’t just meant to sound egalitarian. Its meant to recreate the atmosphere of Vietnam era draft.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
OK Col. Murtha, if we have a citizen army (navy/airforce/marine/coast guard) it is not a lottery, it is everyone (manditory service a la Israel and Switzerland). Secondly, if we have a citizen army, that army has to be under orders of only US command - that’s right Mr Murtha, the US pulls out of both the UN and NATO in terms of providing both troops and monies for any action.


 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Meh. The rioting soldiers at Pioneer Kaserne in Hanau (1973, I think it was) proved the point for me. Couldn’t even walk from the dispensary to the motor pool without being confronted by gangs of roving brothers.

No thanks to a draft, or any other form of non-volunteer Army.
 
Written By: Joe Tobacco
URL: http://www.cadillactight.com
Murtha wants a "citizen army"?

Well I want a citizen Congress, where Representatives don’t have twenty-six year tenures, and a Congress where Repesentatives conspire to accept bribes are indicted, tried, and if found guilty, go to jail.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Well I want a citizen Congress, where Representatives don’t have twenty-six year tenures, and a Congress where Repesentatives conspire to accept bribes are indicted, tried, and if found guilty, go to jail.
GOOD LUCK
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Intel Dump has a posting about the current state of our military. Carter uses the term "broken". He states ( actually he quotes approvingly a source who states) that we do not have enough soldiers in either Iraq or Afganistan to win and no capacity to increase the number to a sustainable level to win either war.

Right here on this blog posters and commenters have repeatedly claimed superior support for the war and soldiers and sneer sneer at Democrats.

Well sorry but those who make that claim are nothing but self-indulgent fakes spouting self-indulgent rhetoric. Anyone who really supports the war and the soldiers would be willing to face up to the hard fact that we don’t have enough troops to win either war and would be addressing how either to get out of the wars or find enough troops.

People who are for real would also be addressing the issue of how to fund the war.

All the rhetoric on this blog and a buck will buy one soldier a cup of coffee. And do nothing towards sustaining the effort to the victory McQ and others claim is so important .

What a bunch of fakes.

 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
Carter uses the term "broken".
Just damn Laura - you spout of like that and use Carter as a reference?
People who are for real would also be addressing the issue of how to fund the war.
We can fund the war laura, let’s just start whacking those farm subsidies, welfare payments, and all that pork. Plenty of $ then to fund the war.
What a bunch of fakes.
I’d offer that you are the fake and it is you who needs to get a grasp of reality. Try it. You might like it.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
laura -
Right here on this blog posters and commenters have repeatedly claimed superior support for the war and soldiers and sneer sneer at Democrats.
Yep. Absolutely. When Democrats stop openly conspiring to bleed the US military out of a war, I’ll stop calling them on it. When Democrats stop replacing funds for our troops and provincial reconstruction teams with subsidies for peanuts and shrimp, I’ll have less ammunition for claiming that I support the troops more than the current crop of leading Democrats do. But alas, the Democrats have made clear their priorities.
Well sorry but those who make that claim are nothing but self-indulgent fakes spouting self-indulgent rhetoric.
If you’re going to rip into the commentariat here for self-indulgent sneer-sneering, it’d be a good idea to make sure you don’t play the part.
Anyone who really supports the war and the soldiers would be willing to face up to the hard fact that we don’t have enough troops to win either war and would be addressing how either to get out of the wars or find enough troops.

People who are for real would also be addressing the issue of how to fund the war.
I’d be glad to address the problem of finding enough troops and funding for the war.

First, if we have cash for the pork in the Democrats’ Iraq bill, we can spend that on the troops instead, agreed?

Second, you may be aware of the many parts of the welfare state to which neolibertarians (and all libertarians, really) object. We’d like to cut as much of that as possible. We’d like to put an axe through the Washington pork barrel as part of that. The more success we have in that, the more money could potentially go toward providing much greater support to our current troops and making sure they’re fully ready and primed for battle, as well as sweetening the deal of joining the military and of re-enlisting.

Third, and this may be less popular, I’d be just fine with "service for citizenship" to expand the pool of potential volunteers. Anybody willing to honorably serve in the United States military has my full backing for becoming a citizen of the USA. I’m not saying that everyone who applies gets in, mind you, just that they join the pool of potential recruits and are judged on what talent and skills they can bring to the military.

But as long as the Democrats are in power, this will likely remain rhetoric. Democrats are diverting funds from the war toward pork projects, rather than the other way around. Democrats who still claim to support the troops will not go so far as to raise taxes to support the troops, even though they call for massive tax increases for state welfare provision. So apparently it’s not a problem of funding, because Democrats have rarely been shy about finding funding for the things they really support.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Democrats are diverting funds from the war toward pork projects, rather than the other way around.
Pork is the path to reelection. Iraqis’s don’t vote.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Iraqis’s don’t vote.
Actually, James, they do, thanks to the Coalition. But I know what you mean.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Bryan thanks for your response, but no, it isnn’t realistic. Democrats are not the only peddlers of pork.. Surely thhe rtesults of the years of Republican majorityy rule proves that. Also, while you were nnot specific, I do have some idea what types of spending libertarians object to ( farm price supports, subsidies for the timber inndustry, for example)but most of that kinnd of spenndinng goes into the economies of red states or the republican parts of blue states. That meanns those subsidies will not be cut by republicans. Classic welfare is a minute part of thhe budget, not enough to offset the cost of the war. The big ticket programs like MMedicare annd Medicaid can’t be cut—political suicide for anny politician to pushh for that.


In other words the idea thhat the war can be paid for with cuts is just as much a bunch of empty rhetoric anns the idea that two wars can be sustainned inndefinately without finding a way to involve more troops.

So, realistically, not dreams and fantasies annd rhetoric, but realistically how is this war gong to paid forand how is it going to be supplied with troops? And what are the more=supportive=than -thou folks affering besides hot air?
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
So you’re asking us to be serious about how this could be done, but then acknowledging that the position of those in power makes our position politically untenable (though it would work), and accusing us of empty rhetoric?

Let me simplify that even further:
"Your support is just empty rhetoric! We need a workable plan."
"Here’s what we would do if we were in charge."
"But you’re not in charge! So it’s empty rhetoric!"

So, the reason you felt so confident blasting at us was... the fact that our political opponents are in power and determined not to follow any workable plan for supporting the troops. So, thanks for dropping by with that morsel, laura. It’s been real.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
It might be "dreams and fantasy annd rhetoric," but I think we could make a lot of progress if the involved parties would kindly strip $21 billion of pork off the top of the $124 billion supplemental they offered (Bush proposed $103 billion). If it’s not "realistic" to demand that the Democrats refrain from rank vote-buying and rent-seeking, maybe I can at least get you to question any support you may offer such people.

I bet that $21 billion could have funded an awful lot of soldiers. Apparently, the Democrats think we have the cash.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Here’s one from Nov 3, 2003:

More U.S. Troops Heading to Iraq Quagmire
Pentagon Lays Groundwork to Resume Draft
Join TrueMajority in Helping to End the Iraq Quagmire - Without a Draft

With 136,000 American troops stuck in Iraq and indications that thousands more are on their way, the Bush Administration is laying the groundwork to reinstate the draft. The Pentagon wants to be ready to order young Americans into combat "at the click of a finger," according to a spokesman for the draft.

Here’s where you come in: Firing up Draft Boards across America would require the government to recruit local board members to serve on 2,000 local boards across America. You can volunteer to become a member of your local draft board.

If you were a scared teenager in your community confronted with being drafted, who would you want deciding your fate? If Bush brings back the draft, people like you serving on draft boards could make a huge difference to that young person’s life.

To apply, click http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=193641&l=187

Click here to read more about Bush’s plan to staff up Draft Boards:
http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=193641&l=188.

Please forward this e-mail to your friends, so they can get active and receive more alerts like this one as we work to prevent the return of Draft Boards.


It’s been 3 and 1/2 years and it hasn’t happened. Does that make this a lie ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I think anyone who actually read the draft bills from the last major attempt in the 108th Congress would have no fear of reinstatement.

A close review of HR 163 (Rangel D-NY) and S 89 (Hollings D-SC) reveals the "twin" documents are not twins at all. But don’t take my word for it, go to thomas.loc.gov and lookup HR.163 and S.89 from the 108th session and compare.

S.89 talks about "active duty and reserve" components while HR 163 talks about "active duty and reverse" components, in 5 different places. Yes, it says reverse (i.e. backward). The version of HR.163 that came to the floor of the House and was actually voted on, talks of "active duty and reverse" components. I don’t know about you, but I assume that a reverse component would be in charge of retreats and surrenders (has a definite Democrat flair to it).

From this, it is obvious that had the "twins" passed, there still would have been no draft.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider