Congress Looking to Make A Big Mistake

[iman]

^Congressman Rangel would like to reinstitute the draft.

 

[Kulindahr]

^Congressman Rangel would like to reinstitute the draft.

So we have someone in favor of ignoring the 13th Amendment. Why is it that so many politicians criticize other politicians' ignoring the Constitution when they have their own pieces they want to ignore?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, Rangel is an idiot and I really am against the draft, HOWEVER, I must point out that the 'militia' is considered any able-bodied American capable of firing a gun, thus why the right to bear arms is universal (see the 2nd Amendment); therefore, Article I, Section 8, the power of Congress is: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

I think the draft would be used for more than "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". For that -- i.e., domestic defense -- a draft would be legitimate. But overseas ventures aren't provided for, so a draft for that purpose is contrary to the 13th.

If Rangel wants a draft, he should first provide for a "well-regulated militia", and see to it that there are training programs available to all citizens, as well as assistance in obtaining the military-quality firearms that militia is supposed to have.
Of course the current Congressional leadership prefers the innovative and anti-grammatical (plus anti-historical) belief that the National Guard is the militia the Second Am. refers to... so why aren't they passing laws to get that militia home, the only place the Constitution authorizes it to serve?

 

[opinterph]

Did we profile after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building?

Yes. Still do; however, the profile is not predicated upon race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

Homeland Security Information Bulletin
Potential Indicators of Threats Involving Vehicle Borne Improvised
Explosive Devices (VBIEDs)​

.​

 

[Kulindahr]

Random dude, I blame the government to an extent; if the people on those planes had been carrying .38s the terrorists just might have looked somewhere else to do their mischief.
But also blame the people -- Americans have gotten too content in being taken care of by the Nanny; they don't believe they should have to face emergencies.

 

[NickCole]

Can you show me where the House has discussed increasing the troop levels to 300,000? That's an option.

Nobody's raised the idea for discussion in Congress.

And anyway it's not an idea, it's an element of an idea. Increasing troop levels to 300k is not a plan, it's not even step one of a plan.

My point is the Democratic-led Congress does not stifle discussion the way the BushRepublican-led Congress did.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nobody's raised the idea for discussion in Congress.

And anyway it's not an idea, it's an element of an idea. Increasing troop levels to 300k is not a plan, it's not even step one of a plan.

My point is the Democratic-led Congress does not stifle discussion the way the BushRepublican-led Congress did.

A matter of some hyperbole, then.
Though I wonder what would happen if someone did raise that notion!

Considering... I don't think that what Murtha proposed qualifies as a plan, either, if you're going to say that raising the troop level to 300,000 isn't one.

 

[NickCole]

A matter of some hyperbole, then.
Though I wonder what would happen if someone did raise that notion!

The first smart person in the room would say, "Where do you propose those troops be sent and what do you propose is their mission?"

I mean, you can't just deploy several thousand more troops and say, "Go get 'em!" And what makes 300k the magic number? On what do you base that number, or is it a random hope that a nice round number like 300k will overwhelm whomever is shooting at us?

Like fixing our public school system, it's not just a numbers game. What are you going to DO with the money, the troops?

Considering... I don't think that what Murtha proposed qualifies as a plan, either, if you're going to say that raising the troop level to 300,000 isn't one.

The plan behind redeployment is to end the slaughter of American troops and fight political battles in the political arena. Removing troops from a battlefield is a hell of a lot different than sending thousands more onto a battlefield.

 

[JayHawk]

Yeah it is a plan for cowardice and failure

 

[Kulindahr]

The first smart person in the room would say, "Where do you propose those troops be sent and what do you propose is their mission?"

I mean, you can't just deploy several thousand more troops and say, "Go get 'em!" And what makes 300k the magic number? On what do you base that number, or is it a random hope that a nice round number like 300k will overwhelm whomever is shooting at us?

Like fixing our public school system, it's not just a numbers game. What are you going to DO with the money, the troops?


The plan behind redeployment is to end the slaughter of American troops and fight political battles in the political arena. Removing troops from a battlefield is a hell of a lot different than sending thousands more onto a battlefield.

The 300k number comes from Colin Powell -- the number he told Bush in the first place that would be a minimum... so Bush got rid of him.

"Redeployment" is a fancy way of saying "Walk off and abandon the people we made a commitment to", just like "Vietnamization" was. Both are sops to the Left who can't handle military action they didn't pick -- like Clinton's essentially illegal foray into Europe; that was okay because Clinton was "their" president. So withdrawing troops is a plan about letting things collapse so we can say, "Oh, the Iraqis couldn't cut it", and thirty years from now there will be another military situation, and this time the liberals will compare it to Iraq instead of Vietnam, and they will still be the ones who screw it up.
The only sort of "political" solution that can occur if the U.S. walks away at this point is the sort of thing that got the Magna Charta done: lots of bloodshed, and a batch of barons forcing the central government to relinquish power and grant more to them... which is what we should have done in the first place, but without the bloodshed.
The people advocating withdrawal (be honest; that's what "redeployment" is) need to be honest and accept that they're advocating widespread violence and slaughter. There are good arguments for getting out, but fantasizing about "political solutions" is foolish -- be honest, and go with it.
Staying, even with another 300,000 troops, also involves a lot of death -- but it would give the opportunity to put in place a constitution which recognizes the reality of Iraq as it is -- which is what a constitution ought to be; it's a setting down of what "constitutes" the country. The U. S. Constitution didn't create anything by its marvelous words; it merely took strands of what people were doing and wove them into a greater structure -- and that's what needs to be done in Iraq.
Besides which, questioning the 300k number is beside the point -- I was questioning whether this Democrat majority in the House really is willing to consider all options. I still don't think they are, because I don't think they waqnt to recognize reality over there any more than Bush has. They just have different pre-misconceptions.