Is Rangel Anti-Military?

I don't think he's actually anti- military, but their needs and wants are secondary to his own political agenda.

The first time he brought up the draft, it was to purely score points and he voted against his own legislation. Because of that, we'll have to wait and see if he's playing political games now or not.

 

He is not asking why do we need a Military, he is asking why is our Military in the Middle East. Why do we need more troops, american son's and daughters to be in this mess. The answer is, loosing is not an option.

 

Rangel is a rabid racist. He wants university-types drafted rather than those on the low end of socio-economic status. He believes that Congress will vote against a military draft rather than send sons and daughters of affluent families off to war. Then he can proclaim that Congress is racist. He's a nutcase. If a "good idea" popped into his head he would announce that he had been poisoned by the religious right.

 

That's classism, not racism.

 

Sounds reasonable to me... Us Po folks a chips N if de needs uses hep.

 

I am trying to figure out how drafting rich college boys (& girls) makes one a rabid racist . . .

I reckon that must indicate that all the college students are of one racial background . . .

 

Try reading it again, slowly. Connect the sentences. Ask someone to assist you.

Perhaps you'll see that Rangel's rant is supposed to produce just the opposite of the draft (that's no draft, if you need that clarified). He can then jump on all the WASPs in D.C., while protecting his minority from any future call-up of 18 year olds and up.

 

LeBuick

Do you have a match? I am trying to heat up the sentence to reveal the hidden & invisible) ink . . .

I keep reading it . . . and while I cannot stand rangel . . . While I would like to call him a rabid racist because he wants the rich kids to serve their country like the rest of us . . . I agree that spoiled rich kids should serve our country.

God bless

Wayne

 

Yes Sir, I's gots some matches. But de's won't do you no good with'im rabies? I hears dem rabies have you down terrible.

Actually, if you read it real slow and remove the periods you'll understand what he said????

Still didn't make sense but I do understood all the words.

 

We faled de gradiate exam so's we culd skeep de draft . . .

So's we gotta protec' de rich peeple dat get rich of a us.

 

I'll vote for that . . .

. . . and then who's family do we personally tag second since you want the politics to be so personal?

. . . Having served my time, I appreciate even the politically motivated that encourage the draft to keep the rich pretty boys serving their country instead of just profiteering off of this country.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/473579p-398444c.html

That's his article.

In it he says: "In New York City, the disproportionate burden of service on the poor is dramatic. In 2004, 70% of the volunteers in the city were black or Hispanic, recruited from lower income communities such as East New York, Brooklyn; Long Island City, Queens, and the South Bronx."

This is technically not a lie but the idea he is trying to promote is that the poor as a whole carry a disproportionate burden which is untrue. Over 45% of military service members come from the wealthiest 40% of homes. It is actually "the rich" that are disproportionately represented.

Further, look at what his data actually says. It says that affluent New York liberals aren't carrying their fair share of the service... not that Republican politicians and voters aren't carrying theirs.

 

Where did you find those stats? They don't seem to be in the article.

His data didn't distinguish between middle class and wealthy nor between conservative and liberal and moderate.

 

70% + 45% . . . . sounds like political mathematics.

And having served in the US Army - I know that African Americans served at higher numbers in the Army than they are proportionate within the general population.

Do they still serve at higher numbers - I no longer know.

But rich pretty boys need to serve.

 

The connection is obvious. Rangel wants all young men subject to the draft, because this would even out the burden of defending America.

More white young men can afford to avoid service, because they have other options. Rangel's bill would draw all people into the military. He's doing this because he knows that if influential people (who tend to be white) have to risk their own children, they will be a lot more careful about what foreign wars they will support.

This, whatshisname sees as "racist." It's sort of manipulative, but it's the opposite of racism. Which is why some people call it "racist." Putting white kids at the same risk as other kids seems so. To them.

 

Having dealt with the draft for a purpose we never should have engaged in, I agree with Martin, the draft is extremely personal.

The first thing is that our troops defending our freedom and entitled to and expect competent leadership from the top, and do not have it. The next thing is, active duty people need to be in the proper number to execute a war. Reserves and National Guard were never meant to carry to main burden of a war, and when they do, only temporary. Something is extremely backwards and wrong about the numbers.

And finally, one must determine if what we are doing is in the interests of the United States, to the extent of American deaths.

 

A military draft is by far the poorer choice to an all volunteer military. If you draft people, you get people with various attitudes, mostly negative. If it is voluntary, you get folks that want to be there and probably have good attitudes as to their service.

Rangel is simply trying to tell Congress that if we continue in our war like ways, we'll end up drafting the sons and daughters of their own constituents. And that is not fun for a politico.