Short theoughts on Charlie Rangel’s selective service plan:

He wants a shared sacrifice? I guess he has to force the young, disconnected, apathetic, and just plain rebellious to take a part in defending their future?

And, let me get this straight: In an “unpopular war,” we’ll just go out and rake them in off the streets, as they won’t come in on their own? Then we have a larger military (gutted by President Clinton, btw), yet we’re going to pull out of Iraq, just what do we need them for?

Mr Rangel, do you have imperialistc visons dancing through your head? If not, I see no reason to add more forces, while you cut funds for the forward deployed units, so they’ll “redeploy” and thereby need less manpower and less munitions to sit in garrison camps thousands of miles from the current combat zones.

I’m just way too slow to keep track of these wonderous plans of the Democrats to fight the war on terror…

Update: Maybe I have figured it out: Draft troops, then you don’t have to pay them well, since they have to be there any way (Hey, Senator Kennedy: Will they at least get the new minimu wage per hour?), and then, all the extra money in the Food Stamp Program will be used! Just think: The Dems can then say they spent more for social progrrams, while giving to the low ranks for the enlisted military, all the while it never showing as an increase in the military budget. That’s a win-win, huh?