Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

On 29 May 2006 16:55:33 -0700, wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more specific. There is already the
structure of a seperate, targeted program in existence, but it has not
been "turned on".

"The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan

Well, sure. There's also a standby draft for enlisted soldiers, though
I wonder how well it could actually work, cranking up a
thirty-five-year old system in a much larger and much more contentious
country. (Besides, who'd train them? The entire U.S. Army would have
to stand down for the first year.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I support Adam Smith. Whether or not your draftee army is one of
technical specialists or high school drop outs the fact remains that
recruitment will NOT be at commercial rates. In a capitalist society
rates of pay are set by supply ans demand and the military, like
everyone else should hire on a supply and demand basis. This will
ensure that resources are applied optimally. If the military is
unattractive, steps should be taken to make it more attractive.

ANYTHING ELSE IS A DENIAL OF BASIC CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES

Furthermore cheap labor tends to make organizations less efficient. If
you are are paying a market price.

1) There will be transparancy over defense costs. Part of the argument
with China is the fact that their forces are not costed on the same
basis as ours.

2) The cost of conscription to the civil economy is the market rate.
This is pure Adam Smith. If he military then costs its labor on a
different basis its practices will effectively be draining the civil
economy of its resources.

Letvus take another example. In England there is a shortage of Science
teachers. Should science gradusates be conscripted to teach. Of course
not. It would do nothing for the organization of schools. In England
one of the major sources of stress is poor discipline. Consciption
would mask this and make it even worse.

The public sector is in a position to make its own rules. One simple
fact - If Bush were to create a Spanish speaking foreign legion with a
US passport at the end of it he might well be applauded. If you were to
employ an illegal you would be breaking the law. Actually you can
become bilingual if you learn a language when young - on an illegal
knee!

The question of why labor is more valuable in the US than it is in
Mexico is an interesting one to debate. Certauinly if you want "trabajo
barato" in any part of the public sector, there is your solution.

wrote:
I support Adam Smith. Whether or not your draftee army is one of
technical specialists or high school drop outs the fact remains that
recruitment will NOT be at commercial rates. In a capitalist society
rates of pay are set by supply ans demand and the military, like
everyone else should hire on a supply and demand basis. This will
ensure that resources are applied optimally. If the military is
unattractive, steps should be taken to make it more attractive.

ANYTHING ELSE IS A DENIAL OF BASIC CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES

Furthermore cheap labor tends to make organizations less efficient. If
you are are paying a market price.

1) There will be transparancy over defense costs. Part of the argument
with China is the fact that their forces are not costed on the same
basis as ours.

2) The cost of conscription to the civil economy is the market rate.
This is pure Adam Smith. If he military then costs its labor on a
different basis its practices will effectively be draining the civil
economy of its resources.

Letvus take another example. In England there is a shortage of Science
teachers. Should science gradusates be conscripted to teach. Of course
not. It would do nothing for the organization of schools. In England
one of the major sources of stress is poor discipline. Consciption
would mask this and make it even worse.

The public sector is in a position to make its own rules. One simple
fact - If Bush were to create a Spanish speaking foreign legion with a
US passport at the end of it he might well be applauded. If you were to
employ an illegal you would be breaking the law. Actually you can
become bilingual if you learn a language when young - on an illegal
knee!

The question of why labor is more valuable in the US than it is in
Mexico is an interesting one to debate. Certauinly if you want "trabajo
barato" in any part of the public sector, there is your solution.



In case you have not noticed...the Army is not a democracy. If the law
says that a draft is legal, you go. Many countries have a requirement
for military service. I dont think pay rates has much to do with it.

Why should the Army have advantages the private sector lacks. I a, not
talking about law. I am talking about the most cost effective way to
run a society.

There is only one way the Adam Smith way.

On 30 May 2006 09:29:33 -0700, wrote:

Why should the Army have advantages the private sector lacks. I a, not
talking about law. I am talking about the most cost effective way to
run a society.

There is only one way the Adam Smith way.

In an ideal world, a laissez faire economic model is great, but in
virtually every society today the reality is something between
free-market and planned economy (Smith vs Marx). The issue is which
side of the spectrum you (or your elected government) favors. Most
folks are too impatient to wait for the invisible hand to show up,
hence we have gripping about "gouging" by gas companies and demands
for governmental intervention.

All that being said, since the mid-70's the US military has been
competing favorably in the free market. The wages, training,
life-style and benefits are attractive enough to keep a broad range of
specialities in uniform.

There is no way that a draft could function in the US today. The
military requirements are different, the society wouldn't allow it,
and the politicians who vote for it would die a horrible, penniless
death. Rangel simply wants to convince the indiscriminate youth
entering the political fray that they are endangered by the
administration.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Leadfoot" wrote in
news:GsMeg.177965$bm6.63689@fed1read04:

[SNIP]

Last time I checked our military was stretched extremely thin. Whicha

Check again. Yeah it isn't easy but "stretched thin". Come on.
ANd-uh the size of the military is determined by Congress. I
can just imagine the howling were the administration to propose
increasing the size of the military on a permanent basis and to
fund the increase. Trotsqerry and his band of boobs wanted 20K, then
40K, and finally 80K extra troops if you believed theur pre-election
rhetoric. News flash you don't add that many troops overnight and
expect them to deploy even the year after. Not unless you are on
a war footing with all that implies.

has allowed the Iranian version of Hitler to thumbs his nose at us while
he acquires nukes. And making the assumption that military action (if
required) against Iran can be limited to airstrikes is ludicrous.

Umm we could take out the Ahmadamnutjob in very short order if the
usual suspects ( Eurabia ) could be convinced to STFU and step out
of the way. Given what we know know about Eurabian involvement in
trying to prevent Sodom the Insane's date with justice, I'm inclined
to say Screw Eurabia and get on with the job.

Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment.

That depends on who and how long you draft them for. Although it might
be quite possible to add some division the old fashioned way... with
volunteers.

Divisions are so last century. The unit of manoeuvre is the brigade.
You could draft several brigades worth of enlisted easily but where
would the equipment and experienced cadre come from?

If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.

One of the worst mistakes we can make is to assume that we will fight
future wars like the last one.

In short become French.

In the case of Iraq they were weakened by a previous war, had an arms
embargo and were studied in minute detail for the twelve years before we
invaded.

And notwithstanding this the usual suspects were shrieking about
massive casualties on a scale that would make a veteran of the
Somme blench.

If we are really lucky the next major war will be fought after the next
Presidential election. The present fools have show themselves to be
completely incompetent.

Where is Sodom the Insane? He isn't in any of his palaces.
Where are Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden. Not in Kabul, probably
not in the 'stan at all.

IBM

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Rangel has done this before--about three years ago. At that time the
bill went nowhere until just before the presidential election at which
time it was defeated something like 425 to 5. Rangel didn't vote for
his own bill.

If you won't "cowerfromthetruth" you should note that Rangel is a
Democrat, exceptionally liberal (bordering on socialist), from a
heavily minority district in Detroit and adamantly against the
administration.

Half right. Rangel's bill might also be a clearing of the throat, an
ahem to create a stir of attention to the fact that the real burden of
this war is being carried by a single strata of society, while Congress
devotes itself to repealing the Estate Tax and Bush devotes his
energies to the real threat facing America, gay marriage. And all too
many supporters of the Iraq war seem to think that their commitment
begins and ends with a yellow ribbon sticker on their car.
He's a Korean War combat vet, representing a district in New York City,
which was just told that it has no national landmarks to protect from a
terrorist attack, so it doesn't need as much Homeland Defense money as
places like Omaha, so he must seem like an outsider to the national
republican party. That bull**** detector of his doesn't help either.

"tomcervo" wrote in
oups.com:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Rangel has done this before--about three years ago. At that time the
bill went nowhere until just before the presidential election at which
time it was defeated something like 425 to 5. Rangel didn't vote for
his own bill.

If you won't "cowerfromthetruth" you should note that Rangel is a
Democrat, exceptionally liberal (bordering on socialist), from a
heavily minority district in Detroit and adamantly against the
administration.

Half right. Rangel's bill might also be a clearing of the throat, an
ahem to create a stir of attention to the fact that the real burden of
this war is being carried by a single strata of society, while Congress

And which strata of society whould that be? Hmmm?
Big hint, they are not by and large Chuckie Rangels class of
constitutent.

devotes itself to repealing the Estate Tax and Bush devotes his
energies to the real threat facing America, gay marriage. And all too
many supporters of the Iraq war seem to think that their commitment
begins and ends with a yellow ribbon sticker on their car.

It doesn't extend to the Dhimmicreeps Socialist welfare state
pipedreams.

He's a Korean War combat vet, representing a district in New York City,
which was just told that it has no national landmarks to protect from a

The Bronx IIRC. Name me some national landmarks in the Bronx.
Name me some important national infrastructure in the Bronx?
Time was saturation bombing of the Bronx wouldn't have been
noticed.

terrorist attack, so it doesn't need as much Homeland Defense money as
places like Omaha, so he must seem like an outsider to the national
republican party. That bull**** detector of his doesn't help either.

Course it would be inappropriate to mention that the reduction in
NYC HSA funding amounts to less than 0.2% of NYC's annual budget.
Not to mention that after a number of years of the current level
of funding maybe there just isn't the requirement for the Feds to
pay for as much.

IBM