If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wants women to register for the draft, people to stop asking him for a few bars of "Minnie the Moocher"   (cnn.com) divider line 115
    More: Interesting, Charlie Rangel, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, American Soldiers  
•       •       •

1227 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2013 at 3:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 10:35:00 PM
Props, Subby.

Very nice.
 
2013-01-27 10:50:05 PM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: //war sucks.


make war
no more
 
2013-01-27 11:10:56 PM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Before drafting women, which I am against... I would ask that men 55 years of age and below be selected for service. There are enough broken bodies and minds coming back from war, we don't need to expose women to this.

/aware women serve on front lines now
//war sucks.


There's nothing wrong with women being exempt from the draft as long as we are consistent and also deny women equal rights.

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
 
2013-01-27 11:47:10 PM
As long as senators' daughters are forced to register.

Otherwise, same old same old.
 
2013-01-28 07:35:02 AM

NewportBarGuy: Even if he was a decorated war veteran, the guy (Rangel) is the very definition of what is wrong with Congress.

His draft sh*t is nonsense. "If we had a draft, then the rich, white people, would not start these wars."

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that, it's never worked like that.

We'll ignore his numerous financial scandals and such. It's just stupid to keep screaming "A draft Army will stop all the needless wars!" because that's bullsh*t. You idiots doing your goddamn job and not drafting things like the Iraq War Resolution might prevent some wars from occurring.

Go away, Charlie. Please.


the biggest, bloodiest wars ever, the napoleonic wars, the american civil war, WWI and II, ... have only been so bloody and so long because conscription alowed a constant suply of cannon-fodder.
Draft don't prevent war, draf prepares for long, bloody wars
 
2013-01-28 08:09:08 AM

NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: None of which has anything to do with women being required to register for the Selective Service.

It's what he does. Just not a fan of the dude. Of course they should be made to register, but the entire system is outmoded anyway. We don't live in an era where we would have the time to muster an Army if we really needed one. We'd be nuked, fragged, and disoriented before we even knew what hit us if we really needed a draft-size Army to face a modern threat.

Just save some money and cancel the entire selective service system.


That's actually wrong: The "bolt out of the blue" scenario is just not believable, there would always be a time of ramped-up tensions before an attack, and that's when you'd institute a draft.
 
2013-01-28 08:10:35 AM

vudukungfu: Guy goes to prison and gets out.
What's that have to do with selective service?


That's why I hate those yellow ribbons as a symbol for military service.
 
2013-01-28 08:30:07 AM

dittybopper: NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: None of which has anything to do with women being required to register for the Selective Service.

It's what he does. Just not a fan of the dude. Of course they should be made to register, but the entire system is outmoded anyway. We don't live in an era where we would have the time to muster an Army if we really needed one. We'd be nuked, fragged, and disoriented before we even knew what hit us if we really needed a draft-size Army to face a modern threat.

Just save some money and cancel the entire selective service system.

That's actually wrong: The "bolt out of the blue" scenario is just not believable, there would always be a time of ramped-up tensions before an attack, and that's when you'd institute a draft.


yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.
Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939
 
2013-01-28 08:57:06 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hidey-hidey-hidey-ho!

/and is there a draft registration now?
//again?
///still?


Yep. Has been for a long time. They fire up the computers every few years to test them, just in case the draft ever has to be used, and the media always tries to manufacture a big brouhaha every time they do that, but the outrage never really materializes.

And yeah; if you're going to put women on the front lines, they should have to register for the draft. It's only fair.
 
2013-01-28 09:24:06 AM
FTA: I commend President Barack Obama for allowing women and members of the LGBT community to serve our country.

To the best of my knowledge, trans-people still can't serve. At least I was told by the SLDN that I still shouldn't bother trying still.
 
2013-01-28 10:11:45 AM
The US is gearing up for war with Iran & North Korea. It is going to take a lot of bodies.
 
2013-01-28 11:31:09 AM

On-Off: yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.
Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939


Ummm, France declared war on Germany in 1939, as did the UK. England sent tens of thousands of troops into France between September 1939 and May 1940, when the Germans actually invaded France. France called up it's military reserves, and drafted people.

Really, do you even have a clue what you are talking about? You are mistaking military incompetence with unpreparedness. Those two can be related, but aren't necessarily.

Also, look at the United States in the same time period: The US started conscripting men into the service in the fall of 1940, well over a year before we were attacked by the Japanese, and even before we were involved in an undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic (which started for the US in mid-1941).

No, major wars always happen after a ramping up of tensions over months, and often years. Any attack against the US that requires widespread conscription will be telegraphed in advance.
 
2013-01-28 11:34:03 AM

Millennium: And yeah; if you're going to put women on the front lines, they should have to register for the draft. It's only fair.


This. They want the perks that come with combat duty without the costs.

Women should be required to register for selective service just like men now. It's only fair.
 
2013-01-28 09:06:18 PM
Woman here.
I wouldn't qualify for service anyway since I have a history of mental illness (depression) and an endocrine disorder. So I don't mind. And if I had to, I'd register for conscientious objector status anyway, since I actually am a pacifist. If I had to serve, I'd ask to be a medic.

Wait, wasn't this guy censured? I thought that means he doesn't matter anymore.
 
2013-01-29 04:12:24 AM

dittybopper: On-Off: yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.
Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939

Ummm, France declared war on Germany in 1939, as did the UK. England sent tens of thousands of troops into France between September 1939 and May 1940, when the Germans actually invaded France. France called up it's military reserves, and drafted people.

Really, do you even have a clue what you are talking about? You are mistaking military incompetence with unpreparedness. Those two can be related, but aren't necessarily.

Also, look at the United States in the same time period: The US started conscripting men into the service in the fall of 1940, well over a year before we were attacked by the Japanese, and even before we were involved in an undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic (which started for the US in mid-1941).

No, major wars always happen after a ramping up of tensions over months, and often years. Any attack against the US that requires widespread conscription will be telegraphed in advance.


well, bad exemple
incompetence was the biggest factor in France's defeat, you are right.
Actually, thinking about it -I read a bit about WWI- the thing I wonder the most is not that they lost so fast in WWII, it is that anyone was crazy/brave enough to go to war again under mostly the same stupid butcher generals as in WWI, only 20years later!
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report