Dems working for the Man.

**Stringer_Bell** · 07-26-2010

It probably isn't being talked about because there's no way it should pass.

The simple fact that Charlie Rangel was the one to introduce this bill ensures it will not pass. In fact, I believe he's done something similar before to "bring to light the actual cost it takes to prolong US strategic dominance around the world." Not a real quote, but I heard something like that on the news once with regard to "required service legislation."

I'm not sure why people are shocked about something like this being discussed, it's been tossed around since Obama was campaigning (not military service, but the civil community service commitment). I don't think it's a bad thing, other countries have military requirements with far less of a defense budget and foreign "assets and interests" to protect. If we still plan on being the big dogs in the yard, we need better borders and less strain on the military cycling in/out of combat zones - which means more bodies in boots. Obviously, I'm not in favor of "drafted" persons fighting wars, but we need to think about how we plan to sustain our dominance on both our homeland and foreign land.

Also, why are people so scared about new wars? Where the else can we invade?

**Parker2112** · 07-26-2010

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

The simple fact that Charlie Rangel was the one to introduce this bill ensures it will not pass. In fact, I believe he's done something similar before to "bring to light the actual cost it takes to prolong US strategic dominance around the world." Not a real quote, but I heard something like that on the news once with regard to "required service legislation."

I'm not sure why people are shocked about something like this being discussed, it's been tossed around since Obama was campaigning (not military service, but the civil community service commitment). I don't think it's a bad thing, other countries have military requirements with far less of a defense budget and foreign "assets and interests" to protect. If we still plan on being the big dogs in the yard, we need better borders and less strain on the military cycling in/out of combat zones - which means more bodies in boots. Obviously, I'm not in favor of "drafted" persons fighting wars, but we need to think about how we plan to sustain our dominance on both our homeland and foreign land.

Also, why are people so scared about new wars? Where the else can we invade?

Man this is sheep talk. a bunch of warring. We are almost bankrupt as it is. We dont need to be the big dogs in the yard, that is for men with little s to fight over...

If you want security, keep the service men and women at home, and work on the economy.

**Stringer_Bell** · 07-26-2010

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Man this is sheep talk. a bunch of warring. We are almost bankrupt as it is. We dont need to be the big dogs in the yard, that is for men with little s to fight over...

If you want security, keep the service men and women at home, and work on the economy.

It's not sheep talk, it's real talk. If this country wants to retain power, there must be sacrifice...and it could come from MANY places, but most often we sacrifice our military. The sheep don't weigh the costs, and everything has a cost when the rest of the world is waiting for you to fall. I'd rather consolidate our strength and bring everyone back from the Middle East and put manpower into building our people (communities) up before propping up big oil, banks, and greedy politicians who assume that because they send our military to war that they can speak for our military.

**SnakeBoy** · 07-26-2010

This thread makes me feel like I'm at a RATM concert.

**Nbadan** · 07-27-2010

Some of you are missing the point, it's real simple...let me spell it out for you...

Would you go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If your answer to that question is no, then you need to start supporting bringing ALL the troops home..

**Wild Cobra** · 07-27-2010

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Some of you are missing the point, it's real simple...let me spell it out for you...

Would you go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If your answer to that question is no, then you need to start supporting bringing ALL the troops home..

Idiot.

Most things in life are not black or white. There are thousands of shades of gray between.

**CosmicCowboy** · 07-27-2010

Rangel's a ing idiot. It's just political posturing and class warfare. His theory is if you start getting "rich" white kids killed/injured that "they" will want the war stopped.

It's all bull ...notice the "Declaration of war" caveat? the last time the US formally declared war was WWII.

**Wild Cobra** · 07-27-2010

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Rangel's a ing idiot. It's just political posturing and class warfare. His theory is if you start getting "rich" white kids killed/injured that "they" will want the war stopped.

It's all bull ...notice the "Declaration of war" caveat? the last time the US formally declared war was WWII.

I still haven't see anything requiring a formal declaration.

Have you?

**CosmicCowboy** · 07-27-2010

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I still haven't see anything requiring a formal declaration.

Have you?

Oops, I got that from the article Darrin posted...

• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.

You are correct. The actual definition in the bill is a lot broader...

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
(1) a declaration of war is in effect;
(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.
(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--
(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;
(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and
(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(d) Selection for Induction-
(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).
(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this le may--
(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or
(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.