Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

[pnwmom]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft

Is he nuts?

If we try to pass this we will hand 2008 to the Rethugs on a silver platter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft

WASHINGTON - A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq.


"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose the measure early next year.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," he said.

SNIP

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

[Mark E. Smith]

1. The day little suburban GOP kiddies get drafted ..

.. is the day the bloodbath in Iraq comes to a screeching halt. When war is no
longer something the poor are exclusively sent to fight we'll find our leaders
far more reluctant to start them.

And remember, Charles Rangel's constituents are the poor most likely to find
themselves fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. He is representing
them here.

Not nuts at all. I'd say the idea is brilliant. The day the draft is reinstated is the
day the Chickenhawk Era comes to an end.

[Copperred]

3. That is the absolute truth.

[Zhade]

177. Some are ignoring the fact that a draft could force us to commit war crimes.

Such as fighting in an illegal war (like the one we're in against the people of Iraq, who never threatened us).

I understand that people want the war over. I never wanted it to start. But I don't understand this call for making it possible for the government to force us to fight in bullshit wars based on lies - which, with this country's track record, is most of the military conflicts we've been in.

It reads to me as if people are calling for a draft, to cause more misery and death, in order to raise support for ending the war. Well, guess what? This country IS against the war now, even without a draft.

If you want more people protesting, work on it happening another way, instead of placing more kids in danger of being forced to kill in a war based on lies. Because they WILL kill, and die, even if the draft-to-end-the-war maneuver works; no matter how effective a tactic (and that's leaving aside the Naderesque make-it-worse-to-make-it-better nature of the tactic), it will take time to be effective.

[pnwmom]

4. Tell that to the families of the 50,000 Americans who died

in Vietnam, the majority of them draftees or "volunteers" who only signed up because they knew they would be drafted.

[Mark E. Smith]

7. The opposition to the war in Vietnam collapsed...

... the day Nixon introduced his "All Volunteer Army."

Why don't you see thousands in the streets protesting the war in Iraq? Because
few have a personal stake in it. Start drafting suburban GOP kids and suddenly
the prospect of being there for another 10 years will not seem so easy for them
to accept.

[pnwmom]

12. You are grossly misinformed. It was the complete reverse.

Opposition to the war in Vietnam collapsed only when the war collapsed.

The "All Volunteer Army" came later -- and the idea was to insure that we never got involved in another unpopular war. If it couldn't be fought with volunteers, then it wasn't worth fighting.

[Mark E. Smith]

16. Umm, no.

Sorry but Nixon ended all draft calls in 1972, and it was
officially abolished in 1973. The war ended in 1975. I
was in college in 1972 and believe me the opposition to
Nixon and his war died a miserable death that year.

And do you really think the military is made up of
volunteers? To me it looks like it is staffed with people
forced to enlist because they have no other realistic
economic opportunities.

[pnwmom]

28. You're flat wrong about your history.

I was in college then, too. But I won't ask you to believe me about anything. This is a matter of history.

We stopped fighting in January 1973, and The Paris Peace Accords were signed that same month. All US soldiers were withdrawn by March. That's why opposition to the war died -- American involvement in Vietnam finally ended. (The Vietnamese continued to fight each other, however, until 1975 with the fall of Saigon.)

Also in January 1973, Nixon signed the bill that converted us to the all volunteer army. He didn't need a draft anymore since we were leaving Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

On 15 January 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, Nixon announced the suspension of all offensive actions against North Vietnam, to be followed by a unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. troops. The Paris Peace Accords on 'Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam' were signed on 27 January, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.


Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger (third and fourth from the left respectively)
The agreement called for the withdrawal of all U.S. personnel and an exchange of prisoners of war. Within South Vietnam, a cease-fire was declared (to be overseen by a multi-national, 1,160-man International Control Commission force) and both ARVN and PAVN/NLF forces would remain in control of the areas they then occupied, effectively partitioning South Vietnam. Both sides pledged to work toward a compromise political solution, possibly resulting in a coalition government. In order to maximize the area under their control both sides in South Vietnam almost immediately engaged in land-grabbing military operations, which turned into flashpoints. The signing of the Accords was the main motivation for the awarding of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and to leading North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho. A separate cease-fire had been installed in Laos in February. Five days before the signing of the agreement in Paris, Lyndon Johnson, under whose leadership America had entered the conflict, died.
The first U.S. prisoners of war were released by North Vietnam on 11 February, and all U.S. military personnel were ordered to leave South Vietnam by 29 March. As an inducement for Thieu's government to sign the agreement, Nixon had promised that the U.S. would provide financial and limited military support (in the form of air strikes) so that the south could continue to defend itself. But Nixon was fighting for his political life in the growing Watergate Scandal and facing an increasingly hostile Congress that held the power of the purse. The president was able to exert little influence on a hostile public long sick of the Vietnam War.

[happyslug]

64. And US personnel after about 1971 could opt out of Vietnam.

With Kent State the situation on the Campuses was overwhelmingly anti-war. They was NO way any non-volunteer could be sent to Vietnam after Kent State, thus Nixon by Executive Action, ruled that only people who volunteer for Vietnam would go to Vietnam after about 1971. What draftees that were taken in 1971 and 1972 were sent to Europe, while pressure was put on people who wanted to make the Military a Career to "Volunteer"for Vietnam.

Now Draftees in Vietnam had to stay they time, but Nixon knew the situation was bad and the Army had to get out or face destruction (Not so much from the VIet Cong but internal decay). This Executive ORder was done at least a year before the Draft was officially ended (I remember reading about it in the papers for I was in High School at the time).

Thus after 1970 Combat operations in Vietnam were done either by the South Vietnamese Army supported by US air support OR special operations. US Ground Forces became more or less inactive (In fact the North Vietnamese issued an order to their troops NOT to engage US Forces UNLESS fired upon, US troops after 1970 were noted for going out to where they had to patrol, build a defensive perimeter and had huge pot parties, which is HOW bad the US Army had deteriorated since 1965 when the Draftee Army was the best Army the US ever had).

Thus technically the Draft continued to the end of US participation in the Ground War in Vietnam, with the Executive Order anyone drafted or who enlisted could opt out off service in Vietnam after about 1971. Thus when the Draft STOPPED sending troops to Vietnam, opposition to the war ended.

The Legal abolishment of the Draft was like the Legal Abolishment of Slavery, both occurred AFTER both had been abolished de facto. In the case of Slavery it was the Surrender of Lee's Army in April 1865 (If not the March through the South of Sherman's Army the year before) not the date of Ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865 (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did NOT Slavery in Areas under US control, thus a Slave in Maryland remained a Slave till December 1865 while a Slave that Escaped from an Area controlled by the South who escaped to the North was freed under the Proclamation, something even Lincoln did not think would lead to many free slaves). My point is Slavery existed in the US till December 6, 1865, while after Lee's Surrender in April 1865 and the Surrender (in England) of the last Southern Command (A Raiding Ship) in November 1865.

The same with the Draft, the technical abolishment was an afterthought, the real abolishment occurred when Nixon said only Volunteers would go to South Vietnam and that was 1-2 years BEFORE the Legal abolishment of the Draft. If I remember right it was done during the early part of 1972 (Nixon adopted it to cut the wind out of the Anti-war sentiment on the campuses). That the draft legally was not extended in 1973, was just the Congress accepting what had already incurred the previous year given Nixon's order that only volunteers would go to Vietnam.

[pnwmom]

91. You make a lot of claims based on your memory alone.

And what I remember is that my male friends who were subject to the draft lottery in 1972 -- for a potential call-up in 1973 -- were all seriously worried about being sent to Vietnam -- and I was terrified that they would be.

http://www.sss.gov/lotter4.htm

Since memories tend to fade, here is a Vietnam timeline that is based on actual research. And it makes no mention of your Executive Order, but it does show protests that continued long after Kent State, when you claim that this Executive Order was made. So clearly, whether or not there was such an order, people continued to protest the war.

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

Some salient dates:

4 May 70 - 4 Kent State college students were shot to death by Ohio National Guardsmen during an anti-war protest on the campus. This lead to widening anti-war protests

3 May 71 - 5,100 policemen backed by 10,000 federal troops resulted in an unprecedented mass arrest of approximately 7,000 persons, with another 2,700 arrested the next day. Protests ended 5 May with the arrest of another 1,200 demonstrators on the Capitol's east steps during a rally attended by some members of Congress

24 Jun 71 - Mansfield Amendment was passed along with the draft extension bill. It was a controversial amendment by Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont) setting a national policy of withdrawing troops from Indochina 9 months after the bill's enactment (wording was later softened to the "earliest practical date"). It was the first time in modern US history that Congress had urged an end to a war in which the country was actively involved

28 Sep 71 - The 2-year draft extension was signed into law after lapsing from 30 Jun until 28 Sep. Deferments were abolished for 1971 college freshmen, although upperclassmen retained draft deferments. Also in the bill was a non-binding provision putting Congress on record as backing an early end to the Vietnam War

[nedbal]

117. The draft did end by 73, it was close for me.

"And what I remember is that my male friends who were subject to the draft lottery in 1972 -- for a potential call-up in 1973 -- were all seriously worried about being sent to Vietnam -- and I was terrified that they would be"

yes there was a lottery # drawn in 72 mine was #6


"If I remember right it was done during the early part of 1972 (Nixon adopted it to cut the wind out of the Anti-war sentiment on the campuses). That the draft legally was not extended in 1973,"


while I had the #6 lottery #... by the time I turned 18 some months latter AND graduated high school the draft had ended.

I still have my draft card

[mahatmakanejeeves]

93. "only people who volunteer for Vietnam would go to Vietnam after about 1971."

I'm working from memory here, so I can't guarantee I'm right.

With a low lottery number, I enlisted in June 1972. I feel certain that the Army stopped sending draftees to Vietnam in July 1972. I see no reason why draftees could not have been sent to Korea.

I can try looking this up, but it might take a while.

[Jose Diablo]

67. The All Volunteer Army came about

because of the mutinees and the draftees told the officers "Sir, No Sir". When the soldiers told the officers to go screw themselves, that was the beginning of the end for the draft.

You see, as long as the soldiers were conscripted, with no declaration of war, legally Uncle Sam didn't have an enforcable contract with the ones fighting the war. There can be no fighting a resource war without 1) Contracts with the fighters, or 2) a Declaration of War from "The People" allowing a legal way to conscript fighters.

[TX-RAT]

135. Almost correct.

The last troops to leave Vietnam were 10 Marines who left the US Embassy in Saigon, on April 30th 1975. That's when their war was over.

[Swede]

9. Rangel won't let them have their college deferments.

This will end the war.

[tritsofme]

23. It would more likely end the Democratic Party

If we claimed reinstating the draft as our own policy.

And that's why it will never happen and all this does is give Republicans a straw man campaign issue.

[pnwmom]

31. Exactly. It would be the kiss of death.

Rangel doesn't have to worry in his district, but any Democrats who follow his lead must have a suicide impulse.

[Jose Diablo]

70. I doubt a draft will end the Democratic party

It will end the careers of the war hawks, corporate sycophants, and the globalists masquerading as politicians for "the people" though. There should be a draft, to make the military more civilian and stop resource wars.

[Copperred]

77. Absolutely...there should be a CLEAR AND TOTALLY TRANSPARENT DRAFT.

[AndyTiedye]

159. There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Draft. Never Has Been. Never Can Be

Even the issue of medical exemptions presents an unsolvable problem.
If you don't allow them, you are forcing handicapped people into the military
who will be completely unable to do what is being demanded of them.
If you do allow them, then the wealthy can always find a doctor to write a letter.

[qwlauren35]

161. I'm not 100% sure that this can't be worked around.

I think Army doctors should make the call about 4F (I think that's what it is called.) AND, I think there are probably many jobs that soldiers COULD do, even with certain disabilities. There are probably people with disabilities who would like to serve!

I remember when Rangel called for a draft a few years ago, and it was poorly received then, as well. I got frightened e-mails from friends as well as hope that this was a Republican smear job, and disbelieve that this was a Democrat's initiative. But I respect Rangel for raising the issue. I still remember when Michael Moore, in Fahrenheit 9/11, asked various congresscritters if they had children serving in the military.

I realize that there are statements that the current Army is evenly distributed in terms of economic background... but I'd like to see proof, especially that this "distribution" is based on GROUND TROOPS, not the combination of enlistees and officers.

[KamaAina]

165. There are people with disabilities serving right now

A number of soldiers who have had legs amputated are actually going back and fighting in Iraq on their prosthetic legs!

In most cases. it's because they want to go back, but still...

edit: header spelling

[pnwmom]

113. I will feel betrayed by any Democrat who votes for this

and I know there are millions like me.

More than enough to put control of the House and Senate back into Republican hands.

[nicehuman]

174. I agree with you

I have been solidly anti-war and anti everything Bush has done. I am not willing to risk the lives of my sons for a political statement. There is no way it will ever be fairly administered with any person of power having their kids in harms way. If it was straight across the board with no deferments for the rich and powerful that would be different. It will never happen.

[pnwmom]

50. It didn't end the war in Vietnam. My husband wasn't eligible for

a college deferment. They stopped having them.

The draft didn't end the war. 30,000 additional soldiers, primarily draftees, died after they starting the Vietnam draft. All the draft did was give Nixon opportunity to widen the war. That's the last thing we need now.

[Jose Diablo]

62. Well, it was June Cleaver that ended the Vietnam War

When the Beave came home in a body bag. Nobody that mattered gave a shit when the soldiers died as long as the factories kept pumping out widgets.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

92. "When the Beave came home in a body bag."

Wikipedia, Jerry Mathers

Mathers became the subject of an urban legend when it was falsely reported that he died in Vietnam. He served in the US Air Force's 22nd Air National Guard during the Vietnam War although he did remain in the United States. In 1969 (or 1968; sources differ) incorrect reports of his death were put out by Associated Press and United Press International when a similarly-named soldier was killed.

[Jose Diablo]

132. I was speaking metaphorically about the Beave

the first I heard of this urban legend. The youth and the middle class lost their innocence and for a time, the belief in the idea the government was the good guys, but Vietnam and Nixon changed all that at least temporarily. It didn't take long to drink the kool-aid and go back to sleep and giving the crooks and liars a free pass.

Looking at how the last vote went, and the recent activities of the politicians, it won't take long for June to also view the Dems as bought sycophants. They have their chance now, but will they do what the people want, or will they continue to give $5 blow jobs to their corporate masters? I predict we will see many flashing lights, smoke and mirrors, but nothing of substance from team B to solve the real problems. That's the purpose of team B, to help the illusion of progress along, otherwise the people may take it on themselves to do something, like when FDR agreed to the "new deal". You don't really believe FDR did what he did out of the goodness of his heart do you? He was faced with a choice, either a "new deal" or the country would be taken to the communist camp. FDR was himself part of the wealthy class, as are virtually everyone in congress, pandering speeches are just so many words.

[AndyTiedye]

29. A Draft Would Enable More Wars

We had a draft during the Vietnam war and it went on for over a decade.

The only thing hold them back from invading Iran is not enough troops.

And what makes you think that a draft pushed through by Democrats
will cause them to turn on the Republicans?

[pnwmom]

33. It kills me, Andy, how little people seem to learn from history.

All the draft did was provide almost limitless cannon fodder in Vietnam. There's no way we would have continued our involvement there, and had 50,000 deaths, if we'd been limited to an all volunteer army.

[happyslug]

78. No, look at Vietnam and Iraq

While US forces were in Vietnam from the 1950s onward, the major expansion occurred in 1965 do to the growing fear that the South Vietnamese would be overwhelmed by the Viet Cong that year (The Viet Cong only formed larger than Company size units in 1964, expanding their support elements during 1964 and 1965).

The US sent in its Draftee army and by 1970 we had MASSIVE protests on the Campuses against the War. Nixon ran in 1968 with a Secret plan to end the War (i.e. Nixon was the Peace Candidate in 1968). When Nixon expanded the war, opposition to the war increased, Nixon then downsized the war starting in 1970 so that by 1972 the only US troops in Vietnam were volunteers NOT draftees (and most US troops had been pulled out leaving the South Vietnamese to fight the war alone). This quick turnaround was do to the FEAR if Nixon of Losing the 1972 Election. Nixon wanted to run as a strong President who wanted Peace but did NOT want to abandoned the South Vietnamese ("Peace with Honor" was the slogan). Nixon's withdraw of most troops by 1972 (and additional withdraws in 1972), his visits to China and Russia (To show he was willing to work out a compromise over Vietnam) and his Order permitting any Draftee to OPT out of going to Vietnam (while Painting McGovern as someone who would turn over Vietnam to the Commies).

Look at the time line Year 3 (1968), the US population starts for the first time to OPPOSE the war (prior to 1968 most Americans Supported the war in Vietnam). Year 5 (1970) the US Starts to pull out troops (With some troops pulling out in 1969). Year 5 also saw HUGE and INTENSE anti-war demonstrations. These die out within a year (I even had a teacher point out the Protests ended after the students were shot at Kent State in 1970). Congress does not cut off funds till 1974 (Voted for as Many a Republican expect a backlash as opposition to the war Increases).

Lets look at the Iraqi War. The US went in in 2002 (a year after 9/11). Most Americans OPPOSED the war from day 1, Congress votes for the war. In year 2, the President gets re-elected on a pro-war platform. Opposition to the war increase over the next two years, but even in 2006, most Congress Candidates hold pro-war platforms (even while the People vote the Democrats in to end the war). You do have protests, but they are small (You had big ones in 2002 when the war started but few now a days).

Look at the Difference, the Draftee Army starts to be withdrawn within a year of when most Americans oppose the war, with elected officiants losing their seats in that very year on that Subject (Look at Nixon's Victory in 1968). US troops were mostly withdrawn within 4 years of the time period when most Americans oppose the war (i.e. by the time of the 1972 Presidential election).

With the Draftee Army, the US goes in with MOST AMERICANS OPPOSING THE WAR. US Troops have ESCALATED since that time, while opposition increased (During Vietnam Opposition to the war increased from 1965 to 1968, but most American SUPPORTED the war during that time period, the Majority only started to oppose the war in 1968). It is now year 4 of when the Volunteer Army went into Iraq. You have no huge protests from the Campuses (You have some but not anything near the protests of the late 1960s or even 2002 when this war started). Americans did NOT vote the war till THIS YEAR when opposition became overwhelming, unlike in Vietnam when the Voters voted the war THE FIRST YEAR IT BECAME UNPOPULAR.

Why the Difference? Various explanation, fear of Communism vs fear of Islam, The perceived threat of the Soviet Union in the 1960s as opposed to the perceived threat of Saddam in 2006, but one of the most telling is the difference in the Army. Now the Army that went to Vietnam was mostly poor and working class children, but you had many Upper Middle Class kids going AND MANY AFRAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO. Parents did not want their kids to die in a war they did not support, and the Army was viewed as nothing but Draftees and people viewed them as "Their" Kids. In Iraq, people view the troops as professionals who are being paid, these are NOT their "kids" dieing, but paid professionals. "They knew the risks when they enlisted". Thus people do not see these troops as "Theirs" as in "Their Kids" but as "Theirs" in the sense the Public Highway is "theirs". The word is the same, but the perception is different, with th Draftee the parent knows that just by the act of God their own kids could be going, while with a Volunteer force, the attitude is more like viewing the troops as Highway workers who get killed, they knew the risk when they took the job.

This perception difference explains how fast Politicians in the late 1960s responded to the growing opposition to the War and the Draft, and how modern politicians have NOT responded. One of the Reason for the adoption of the Volunteer Army in the early 1970s was a mercenary army is easier to send to a war which is unpopular at home, than a draftee army. Look at 1972, only "Volunteers" could go to Vietnam, violent opposition to the war ended (Opposition to the war Continued but not at the pace of the late 1960s early 1970s). Nixon even won re-election in 1972 by de facto ending the Draft for Vietnam (It continued till 1973 for other parts of the US Army i.e. Europe Japan and Korea).

This is one of the factors when deciding between a Universal Military Service (UMS, which is what the US had prior to 1973 not a true draftee Army) AND A Mercenary Army, it is easier to ship a mercenary army to fight an unpopular war. The oppose is also true, it is HARDER to send a UMS army to a war opposed by the majority of your countrymen. In most Democratic societies this is NOT a problem. The Country will not go to war without Support for the war from the majority, since the people and the Army are one and the same. If the leadership does send a UMS Army to an unpopular war, the leadership will lose the war (Either by battle as the troops go back home, or in politics as the people will comes into play).

Mercenary Armies, on the other hand, are easier to be sent on Unpopular Wars. The people may oppose the war, but have no real stake in opposing the war. Thus the Leadership can stay in power, all the leadership needs to do is order the unit to go. Thus one of the comments about aggressive states, most do NOT have UMS Armies, for such Armies represent the people and unless the people are for the war a UMS Army can not go to war (And why Dictators who have UMS armies have MASSIVE propaganda efforts to keep both the Army and people loyal to the "cause" as did Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin). If that Propaganda effort fails, the Dictator will fall (In many ways this is what happened to Napoleon his Propaganda Machines was built on military victories, any defeats would lead to his downfall, as it did after the Battle of Nations in 1813 and again after Waterloo in 1815, Mussolini suffered the same fate in 1943, and the reason for the quick surrender of the Germans after Hitler's Death).

Do to this fear of the People most Dictators do NOT use UMS Armies. Instead most Dictators opt for Mercenaries Armies, Armies they can keep loyal by keeping them paid (For example look at the Armies of most South American and other Third world Countries, they may have some draftees in them but most are Mercenaries).

My point here is our present Military is a mercenary one, one that can be shipped anywhere no matter what the American people want (as long as the US Leadership wants it to go). UMS Armies just can NOT be used that way for the people and the Army are one and the same, and thus you MUST get the approval of the People to send a UMS army anywhere.

[pnwmom]

106. Americans ALREADY oppose the war in Iraq. That's WHY the

Democrats took over both the House and the Senate.

We don't need a draft to get people upset about the war. They're already upset and they expect the Democrats to get us out now -- NOT to start a draft.

In Vietnam, we lost more than 50,000 American lives -- WITH a draft and large scale protests for YEARS before we finally signed the Peace Accords and pulled out.

By comparison, we have lost 3,000 lives in Iraq, without a draft, and the vast majority of Americans oppose the war. They've given Congress a clear mandate -- get out of Iraq.

They haven't given Congress a mandate to start drafting their children.

[happyslug]

163. My point (and I really did not address it in my post) is the Iraq war

was only possible do to the US having a Volunteer army, the US Congress and the President would NEVER have sent in a Universal Service Army into Iraq. In Vietnam the US Army went in when most Americans SUPPORTED the war, and was withdrawn once most Americans opposed the war. The reason for this is the people of the US viewed the UMS Armies as "Their Sons" and as long as the Majority of Americans believe the war was worth fighting, their sent their boys to serve. Once the Majority of Americans no longer supported the war, the Army HAD to come home. You could NOT keep it operating in South East Asia as a UMS Army when the Amer ian People opposed the war (and thus the relatively rapid withdraw of US Forces ONCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OPPOSED THE WAR).

As to Iraq, most Americans do not view them as "their Boys" but professional soldiers who have agreed to fight any war. Thus, while most Americans did not support the war in Iraq, they were NOT going to vote on that issue alone unlike the situation in 1968 when the "Peace" Candidate won. By 1972 Nixon had made the Vietnam war no longer a place draftees went to die and thus was able to take the issue of DRAFTEES FIGHTING AND DIEING OFF THE POLITICAL AGENDA. The movement to a 100% Volunteer Army was also seen as a way to preserve the US Army as a weapon one could use even in Wars opposed by most Americans.

Notice the difference, a UMS Army can not be used without support of the American People, while a Volunteer army can be. If the US Army was a UMS Army it would NOT have been sent to Iraq do to the lack of support in America for the War. Bush would have had to do a better job of selling the Iraq war to the American people. At the same time a UMS war would have been sent to Afghanistan for most Americans supported fighting the Taliban after 9/11.

This is the main difference when it comes to using a UMS army and a Volunteer army, the UMS army is useless in an unpopular war, it wants to fight for the what the people want. A volunteer army wants to fight the war its paymasters want to fight. When it comes to Iraq, Bush would NOT have had an army to go into Iraq with if the US army was UMS, but instead the US has a Volunteer/mercenary army and it did as its paymasters told it to do.

[ckramer]

42. Exactly. If Bush's daughters have to go to Iraq, this war would have ended long ago

Go Draft!

[pnwmom]

48. We're talking about MY kids, not Bush's. They'll never be at risk

no matter what.

If you are right, then how come 30,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam AFTER the draft began? It took a horrendous number of deaths and YEARS of protests before we finally pulled out -- and Nixon's willingness to end the war probably had as much to do with his problems with Watergate as anything that the protesters did.

[customerserviceguy]

154. Do you really think

women would be drafted if there ever was a military draft reinstituted? If they left out women, I can see the US Supreme Court finding that unconstitutional, even without the Equal Rights Amendment.

Even the prospect of women being forced into the draft by the SCOTUS would keep both Democrats and Republicans from voting it back in. This is just Charlie Rangel's way of trying to make a rhetorical point, nothing else.

[AndyTiedye]

157. A Draft Would NOT Send **'s Daughters to Iraq, Just Like It Didn't Send ** to Vietnam!

The rich and powerful will always find a way out for their kids. They always have.
Even if they are forced to go into the military, there will always be "champagne" units,
far from the fighting, waiting for them.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sugapablo]

69. No. Unfortunately...

The wealthy and well connected can always get out of the draft, or at least out of any combat position. They never serve on the front lines.

[SKKY]

121. This is the dummest idea EVAH!! EVAH!!!!...

...If the Military voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Bush, to the tune of 77%, wouldn't that suggest that
GOP kiddies are, in fact, serving in the Military? I am in the military, enlisted on active
duty, and I assure you, there are is an over abundance of "GOP kiddies" in the military. What
we need in the Military are more Democratic, left-leaning folks to get the pendulum swinging in
the opposite direction. I think what is meant by "GOP kiddies" is "Privileged Kiddies", and if
anyone thinks reinstating the draft would change that is seriously fooling themselves.

[saigon68]

140. NOPE never happen

Those fuckers will just get deferments like Joementum Limpmann and chickenhawk Cheney

[Tight_rope]

146. You are so damn right...

War is simply an extension of politics by other means!

[Tight_rope]

147. You are so damn right...

War is simply an extension of politics by other means!

[dorktv]

2. I have no problem with a draft, I have a problem with using those

who are in the military in conflicts that have no resolution.

The military needs to be less insular.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorktv]

18. Not sure exactly why you want to completely destroy Iraq...

but MY point is that having a draft will have everyone in the country more likely to know a soldier or to have been a soldier. Just like everyone should run for office at least once, being there lets you know what it is like so you understand better the institution.

That is why I am okay with a draft but I am NOT okay with our fellow countrypeople being killed in stupid wars for reasons no one knows about.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorktv]

66. Yep, you are what they said you are.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorktv]

208. Nah really? No one who can google would know that.

And you still are what they say you are.

[anotherdrew]

71. may you drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq

what you're suggesting would be nothing less than a crime against humanity. Please, try to be reasonable.

[TheWatcher]

114. I have a better idea, Little Truman

Why don't we re-instate the Draft, send YOUR ass over to Iraq, and THEN Carpet Bomb the "Insurgency", with your Armchair Quarterbacking Ass right in the fucking middle of it. While we're at it, let's send all of your ilk who think like you over there prior to the Carpet Bombing, and then let er' rip.

Then we'll see how you feel about what would be nothing less than a Genocidal War Crime.

Quit your jaw-flapping, Captain America.

ENLIST.

[Megahurtz]

186. Sounds like YOU want to volunteer...

maybe you should. :sarcasm:

[Thickasabrick]

75. I hope you are being sarcastic....if not, you are advocating what

all the rednecks said to do all along. Nice.....:sarcasm:

[Nederland]

166. Great Idea

I'm sure carpet bombing the insurgency will work just as well as it did in Vietnam...

:eyes:

[Megahurtz]

181. It's obvious that you have no kids of Draft age

or are not of Draft age yourself.:eyes:

So you must be safe! Good for you! :sarcasm:
How attitudes change when it affects you personally!:think:

[dorktv]

207. I am 27 years old. And I still have no problem with the draft.

honestly :eyes: Try asking "are you draft age?" before jumping to that conclusion.

[Megahurtz]

217. So are you saying you have no problem with being Drafted yourself?

}(

[dorktv]

219. Nope, if I get drafted I get drafted. Right now I am serving my country

in another way. Well I will Jan. 2nd.

[Old and In the Way]

5. My son and daughter are prime drafting age.

This would galvanize all Americans to action, to shut down this miserable foreign fantasy of Bush/Cheney and Big Oil once and for all.

[pnwmom]

6. It would galvanize Americans to action -- against the Democrats

who supported it.

The Rethugs aren't so suicidal.

[NVMojo]

22. I agree with you, pnwmom, this will bite the Dems in the ass for 08

[OhioChick]

24. You're right.

Bad, bad idea.

[pnwmom]

34. It didn't work that way during Vietnam. Or at least it didn't

happen fast enough.

Thirty thousand of the American deaths were AFTER we started the draft. It took years of protests before the war ended -- and Watergate might have been the real reason Nixon finally gave up.

[KoKo]

96. Repugs will never vote for it. It will die. Rangel is doing a National

Service bill to put the fear of death into the Repugs who don't wan't their sons and daughters to serve.

I'm not happy about it...but he's shoving their lack of service in their face and will put safeguards to make sure their kids don't get to opt out of service.

Problem is: On the iffy event it did pass because they call Rangel's bluff on this...they will make sure THEIR KIDS never do the service.
So while Rangel bluffs them...they could turn it around on him down the road.

Calling the Repugs on their hypocracy is one thing...but it's a dangerous road Charlie Rangel goes down with this.

[pnwmom]

104. And while he's bluffing them, he's making Democrats look like

we're the war mongers! That's just great.

[KoKo]

151. Remember the Dems want to change image to "Strong on Defense &

Security." Calling the Repugs on their own hypocracy. :shrug: It's one way to go...not one I would have chosen, though.

[Nederland]

167. One problem

Reinstating the draft will weaken the military, not make it stronger. Every person in our military leadership knows that a drafted army sucks--an all volunteer army will always outperform one made up of people that got dragged into service unwillingly.

[KoKo]

176. Heritage Foundation agrees with you and so does Rumsfeld..but this

70's person says give Rangel his hearing because what was done in the past and what's proposed and using our National Guard as fodder in an Occupation...just really revists Vietnam and add's whipped cream for "Nation Building" on top (remember George II said he was NOT in favor of NB in the debates where he ran for President).

WE WERE LIED TO...BIG TIME.!!! LIED TO... LIED TO!!!!

[MGD]

200. Every person in our military leadership knows that a drafted army sucks

If NCOs do their jobs properly, that's not necessarily the case.

[Zhade]

179. "Strong on defense" - propping up illegal wars isn't that.

NT!

[bluestateguy]

8. What an asshole

It was one thing to do this as a cheap stunt when he was in the minority, but he is a committee chairman now from the majority party, and people will take this moonbat idea seriously as a result.

Why would he want to feed the neo-con cabal still more warm bodies for wars of expansion?

I know what point he is trying to make. I don't need it repeated to me, but the bottom line here is that he is playing games with young people's lives. I'm only a few years outside of draft age myself, and I don't appreciate it.

Does Rangel really think that the George P. Bush's of the world would actually be drafted under his "no exceptions" policy? Oh he does? Then he is as naive as he is stupid. The well connected will ALWAYS find ways to evade service, regardless of what the law says about "no exceptions". Please.

I expect the party to repudiate this birdbrained idea.

[rocktivity]

11. DING DING DING! Bluestateguy, you're our grand prize winner!

It was one thing to do this as a cheap stunt when he was in the minority, but he is a committee chairman now from the majority party...

Exactly--what if Bush calls his bluff?

:headbang:
rocknation

[marshall]

17. I for one applaud him

He is putting his money where his mouth is. Everybody thought it was a stunt when he was in the minority, but now that he has the power he is going for what he believes. As has been stated here, the founders wanted a citizen military.

[pnwmom]

41. It's still a stunt. In his district, he'll make points for this.

He apparently doesn't care what damage it does to the party.

[marshall]

56. It could work if it is properly crafted

I don't think there is fundamentally anything wrong with having a draft, but I think there are different ways to approach it. Maybe Rangel's plan will be to have a draft kick in when a certain set of criteria happen that calls for a larger military. Then the next time congress votes to invade a country or start a war they will be doing it knowing that a draft will result from their moving forward and they will put much more thought about the consequences of what they are doing.

I just don't think Rangel's plan is for a Vietnam era style draft.

[pnwmom]

103. I think we're crazy to have any confidence in his plan, whatever is may be.

I'll be one of the mothers voting against Democrats if they're stupid enough to follow Rangel's lead on this.

[Malidictus Maximus]

137. Bullshit

"I don't think there is fundamentally anything wrong with having a draft, but I think there are different ways to approach it. "

And HERE is the real problem. People, of *ANY* political disposition, who feel that the individual OWES the state their service. A person's life belongs to them, not the state; ANY state, regardless of party. I would like to say I respectfully disagree with you but quite frankly I can say that any degree of violent resistance if fully justified in opposing the draft or any compulsory service.

Now old Robert Heinlein had an interesting idea- if you didn't serve you couldn't hold a public office or government job. Or vote. Don't want to serve- fine, your life is your own, but you are not a citizen, merely a resident.

[JVS]

153. Hasn't Rangel been winning his district since the early 70's?

Does he really need to make points?

[lostnfound]

49. I totally agree with your content, though not with the title

I am quite aggravated over this as well.

As an alternative, I propose drafting decision-makers throughout the "defense" industry and all fundraisers for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

[spoony]

119. You're totally right

He's proposing further hurting the working class in a vain attempt at making a point that most people won't get anyway. How many of them is he willing to sacrifice in order to get his target--a few rich kids? It's as stupid as dropping bombs on a village and saying that among the casualties there were probably a few terrorists.

[smb]

139. The Dems Are Lucky Dumbya's So Inept

If George of the Bungle had any decent political instincts, he's abolish registration in order to embarrass Rangel and keep this mistake in the news cycle for an extra day or two.

[Zhade]

180. Plus, this version ISN'T 'no exemptions'.

There's a 'national service' clause.

Anyone who thinks those slots won't be filled by the rich? You're kidding yourself if you think that.

[izzie]

10. I wanted the draft to go but changed my mind years ago.

Our 'founders' wanted a citizen army and I started to see their point when we had all these little wars long before this one. Like getting drug guys after we set them up to run a country. If you have to worry about a son in the war you find out what is going on.

[dorktv]

19. That is also a good reason to have a draft. People need to

have more contact with those in uniform in a way that helps build understanding rather then what we have now where how many Americans can go a year without even speaking to a uniformed member of our armed forces?

[Megahurtz]

192. Are you nuts? YOU go serve then!!!

And leave my kid and others out of it!!!:mad:

[dorktv]

209. Who said I support this war? I said I have no problem with a draft.

A draft means that more Americans will have experience with the military, the military will be less insular (with just one sector of our country being in uniform), and people will be less likely to jump into unnecessary wars or more willing to vote the idiots out of office without it taking 6 years.

I am 27, I would be eligible to be drafted under this legislation. I would serve if called but I currently serve my country in a different capacity. One that would not give me deferment either.

[Megahurtz]

218. Supporting the Draft IS supporting the War.

After all, they only Draft because of War.
And if you get Drafted you would have no guarantees of what capacity they would make you serve.

[dorktv]

220. They drafted after WWII even when there was no war going on.

And I probably would get sent to Iraq however I would not be "in combat" officially because I lack a wee wee.

[pnwmom]

36. I have two sons to worry about and I'm as involved as I can be.

People like you make me sick. You want to put my sons in harm's way to prove a point? Go volunteer yourself.

[Thickasabrick]

76. Ditto....I have one who I will personallly drive to Canada.

[izzie]

129. My husband and I said the same thing during Vietnam and

He was a lifer in the service. It is just how I felt then, no draft but I have changed my mind. I think it is the only way to get a hold of this govt. People have to care. I am sure I am not sure I am right and this will happen that people will care more. Most of the trouble seems to come from the guys in DC. and not from the home front but if more had to think about it on the home front maybe they would think what those guys would do in DC.

[Oak2004]

221. Actually, they wanted a very small standing army

but the very first military draft dates from the civil war, nearly 100 years after the nation was founded.

[Leftisalwaysright]

14. Amen

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,"

Absolutely, Rep. Rangel, I can't wait to see how the GOP responds to this.

[rocktivity]

15. Provding alternatives to military service defeats the draft's purpose

(Rangel)...said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

But wouldn't that effectively create a "backdoor backdoor draft" for the very same kinds of kids who avoided Vietnam? And what about the people who actually WORK in our seaports, airports, schools, hospitals--do they get outsourced?

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," he said.

Good thing I opposed Iraq, then--whew!

:shrug:
rocknation

[rolleitreks]

20. That does it. I'm voting Republican. n/t

[NVMojo]

21. did this asshat not get that the message we sent was "get the fuck out!"???

[Opusnone]

25. I agree with Rangel

This will quickly call the right's bluff in the GWOT.

If it TRULY exists, if we are TRULY all in danger and if we must win at all costs, there should be no problem asking Americans to do their part.

I see a declaration of victory in the GWOT soon using this strategy.

[pnwmom]

38. No, the American people will feel betrayed. They didn't elect Democrats

in order to put their sons and daughters at risk of being drafted.

If the Democrats tried to pass this, that's the end of my involvement with the party.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrick t. cakes]

99. what do you mean "destroyed"

what have bushco been supposedly trying to do?
they cant "destroy" them. isnt that the point?
its a no win situation.
seems carpet bombing would only kill thousands more innocent civilians.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tritsofme]

26. All this draft talk doesn't end the war, it can only end our majority.

I can see the ads now decrying the "powerful Democrat chairman of the Ways and Means Committee" wanting to draft your kids.

That's a way more powerful message than calling your opponents hypocrites.

[jgraz]

30. Rangel is just one guy

My guess is that he knows this bill will go nowhere, but he now sees an opportunity to have some real floor debate on the disproportional sacrifices that this war is inflicting on the poort.

Remember, the Repugs held a majority for 12 years with guys like B1-Bob Dornan, Newt "I'm Hot for Teacher" Gingrich and Tom DeLay. As long as the Dems as a whole deliver on their basic promises (AND kill the voting machines), the Repugs will be out in the cold for a good, long while.

[pnwmom]

39. We don't need to be painted as the party that proposed the draft.

Are we nuts? Do you think that this is our mandate? I can guarantee you that the voters will feel betrayed if the Dems go anywhere with this.

[jgraz]

51. Like I said...

In order for "Dems" to go with this, you actually need "Dems" (plural). Rangel's gonna be all by his lonesome on this one.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right ro bring it up, though...

[Charlie Brown]

53. Even Rangel voted against this bill (his own) when it was up before

http://www.thehill.com/news/100604/rangel.aspx

He needs to bury this issue and focus on his Committe Chairmaniship.

[pnwmom]

102. The headlines are using words like "Top Democrat proposes."

That'll really help us.

:sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

195. OMG he's going to really fuck up our chances in '08!!!

:banghead:

[ButterflyBlood]

32. This idiot should focus more on ending the war than making a point

The public is already against the war, as shown by the polls and what happened two weeks ago. Now's the time to start passing that legislation asking for a timetable for withdrawl and force Bush out, not pull this stunt which makes no sense in the majority.

[IsItJustMe]

44. Yeh, that's why I voted Democratic. So they can start the draft so that I can go over to Iraq and

fight. Jesus Christ.

[YellingTuna]

46. Exactly

I thought voting democrat was a vote against the war?

[YellingTuna]

35. I Just Turned 18 - Im a Liberal (Why should I be forced to fight?)

I am solidly against this war, I have been to protests, I have tried to convince friends to rally against it. Now to see a DEMOCRAT wanting to reinstate the draft makes me sick to my stomach. So in other words I should be forced to fight in a war I am completely against? Die for something I can’t stand???? This makes me sick…. I guess I should be working on my student visa. Oh also I heard someone say that the suburban kids will have to fight,,,,, I am one of them. I appreciate my life, my family, and I can’t stand the GOP. Sorry really pissed.

[pnwmom]

40. YellingTuna, I am TOTALLY with you -- and I believe most Democrats

are.

It makes me sick when Democrats or anyone else treat kids and their parents as pawns . . . which is exactly what Rangel and some of the DU'ers here are doing.

Welcome to DU, YellingTuna -- and keep yelling!

[Charlie Brown]

43. You shouldn't

The lesson here is that there are extremely bone-headed politicans in both parties who enjoy playing games with the lives of others. In this case, Rangel is trying to make a cheap point on the ethics of war to play to his base and some DUers, and he doesn't care if it affects you or others.

The Democratic Party is above this, and Rangel should realize that.

[Thomas_Paine1776]

52. Yes, your're right, we are dropping our call for a temporary draft .

In the beginning, a temporary draft made sense, it was needed to win the kind of war planned in Iraq. The US needed sufficient force to win. President Bush had in incompetent plan with only enough troops to cause turmoil and fuel insurgency.

Now, we are no longer willing to give Bush any draft or any troops. The war needs to end very soon. Bush can't manage what he has, and Congress doesn't need to give him any more.

The course needs to change. The war can still be won through an aggressive air campaign. The Strategic option using B-52s and carpet bombing to completely destroy insurgent strongholds. Collateral damage is necessary to destroy the enemy and to save American lives and to prevent us from having to ask young Americans to fight for an incompetant Commander and Chief. Not one more American life should be placed at risk for this President. America can win this war, even if we have to put Congress in charge to do it.

Insurgents should be given the option for a cease fire and if they refuse it, relentlessly destroy them all. Congress will have to pressure President Bush to use the stategic option, since he has proven to be too much of a panderer to the enemy to win. President Bush full of hot air, he talks tough to Syria and wimpers away.

Bush has allowed Americans to be kidnapped, beheaded, and terrorized. He has allowed a well funded insurgent enemy to continue to receive funding and ammunition from outside and he has not had the courage to stand up to it.

You're right you shouldn't be asked to fight for an incompetent Commander and Chief, and we won't ask for the draft. That option is now off the table. Impeachment should be on the table though. The way it appears, we don't even think the troops over there now should be asked to continue much longer to fight for this incompetent Commander and Chief. President Bush is on the verge of causing some very serious damage to US credibility and national security for not following the early advice.

[citizen snips]

74. I am also 18

and this bill is complete bullshit.

[YellingTuna]

82. Thanks

Thanks to everyone else "that agrees" for your comments. I can only guess that the dems will strike any of this talk down. Or at least I hope. It seems like Rangel wants to play Russian roulette with our lives, just to prove a point.
-The Yelling Tuna

[Megahurtz]

197. You should not, and I would not!

I don't give a rat's ass if this is a bluff or not or anyone else's stupid reason to support a Draft...
(on this fucking DU Board no less! I'm shocked.) :wow:

But I will wholeheartedly protest a Draft and I'm sure many will join me.

I voted for Dems because I am against the War and I thought they were too.:mad:

I say fuck the Draft and fuck fooling the public!:grr:

[laconicsax]

47. This is a terrible plan

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft"

The majority of Americans oppose the war, the majority will oppose the draft and low and behold, about 70% of Americans oppose the draft.

His previous attempts at this have failed, he needs to give it up. There's no way that a draft will end support for the Iraq war nor will it end the constant warmongering, it will only fuel the chickenhawks' desire. Increase the military by thousands upon thousands of personnel and suddenly, there's the option to go to war with new countries that we haven't invaded yet and sustain the war in Iraq indefinately.

The option to serve in stateside assignments will look inviting to the chickenhawks who have draft-age children because their kids could get drafted and never put in harms way.

[Thomas_Paine1776]

55. Maybe that's what Charlie Rangel means.

The people no longer support the war. That's true. Why give President Bush more troops when he can't manage the ones he's got now. He's an incompetent Commander in Chief.

The risk is that President Bush might call Charlie Rangel's bluff to keep the war going.

Congress needs to give President Bush 4 to 6 weeks to win in Iraq or begin impeachment and removal of Bush/Cheney. The war can be won using the Strategic option with B-52 carpet bombs to destroy the insurgency completely. Americans are justified to seek the strategic option win win the war right now. President Bush has allowed American beheadings, kidnappings, and terrorizing and has done little to stop the funding and resupply of the insurgents.

Its evident that Bush/Cheney don't intend to win but to manipulate events and to elect McCain to continue the war.

[Polethebear]

123. Charlie's being stupid

I think I understand the point he's trying to make but he's making a mistake. The repugs I think would go along with it,use it and laugh all the way to '08. This and the majority leadership,things arent starting out right,folks.

The general public are not gonna look at this as payback toward the rich. They are look at as "not my kid" orif it's 18-42, "not my family member".

He needs to kill this right now. If he doesn't,well it was fun while it lasted.


Pole

[Polethebear]

124. Followup............

I think charles is using this as a lever to convince the country to back down from these endless wars(Iran,North Korea) and like he said to aid lower income familes. But it won't work,pepole will panic and it will back up on us.

[Megahurtz]

198. Yeah and Murtha should have been voted in there.

That pisses me off too. :grr:

[rollin74]

54. Is Rangel really against the war? I guess not...

How the hell can you support drafting people to fight and be killed in a war that you claim to oppose?!?
Dumbest idea ever!

[Thomas_Paine1776]

57. He's turing up the heat on President Bush

Many are displeased that those who supported President Bush haven't had to sacrifice much for the war. That's what is meant.

In this recent election, people were voting against President Bush on the economy and the war.

A temporary draft in the beginning might have had a quick victory for the war. That time is past. Charlie Rangel ought to drop the call for a draft and put pressure on President Bush for the Stategic option to win the war without more troops.

If they need troops, they can get them from US forces in S. Korea and Europe. US needs to get out of S. Korea anyway and we're wasting money on Europe.

[pnwmom]

115. No. Exactly the opposite is true.

If we end up with a draft, it will be the Dems who will take the worst of the heat because everyone will always remember that it was Dems who first proposed it.

[pnwmom]

107. "Dumbest idea ever!" I agree.

Welcome to DU, rollin74!

[jtm111]

59. I don't get the surprise about this

He has been trying to institute the draft for YEARS...

He is a senior member of congress with a committee chair and the power to make it happen, and I have a feeling the planets are aligned just right for it to happen.

[pnwmom]

108. I'm not surprised, I'm outraged.

I think our new Speaker should put a stop to this grandstanding.

Welcome to DU, jtm111!

[smb]

141. The Bottom Line

1. Rangel has some bug up his butt.

2. The Party leadership needs to grab him, strap him down, put on the rubber glove, and pull the bug right back out of his butt (as uncomfortably as possible, to remind him to behave himself in the future).

[davidinalameda]

60. no he's not nuts

is everyone missing his point on this measure?

[pnwmom]

109. I know what he thinks his point is.

He's bluffing.

But he's handing Republicans an issue on a silver platter. Already the headlines are full of phrases like "Top Democrat calls for a draft."
Great. The voters are already feeling betrayed.

[davidinalameda]

116. he's introduced this bill for the past few years

it's nothing new

I really think people need to realize what it's all about and get over it

[pnwmom]

120. He wasn't in a position of power before. Now he is.

He's the new Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Someone in that kind of position shouldn't go around proposing things under the assumption that nothing will come of it.

He may just be providing Bush the cover he needs to institute -- in a bi-partisan fashion -- the draft that is necessary to fulfill his dreams of endless war.

[Polethebear]

125. Yeah,we can get over it alright........

in November 2008 when the reupgs pull a trifetca and get the senate,congress and white house.

oh boy..............

[Zhade]

183. Not just bluffing - bluffing WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

This is unethical.

[OneBlueSky]

61. most Americans think very simplistically . . . if the Democrats propose a draft . . .

and it passes, the Democrats will be blamed by all those middle class voters whose kids will be off to the Middle East . . . and that will NOT bode well for 2008 . . .

I suggest that we just sit back and let BushCo take the initiative . . . which they will have to do, particularly if they attack Iran . . . then the blame will be placed where it's deserved . . .

[fujiyama]

63. He can introduce whatever crap he wants

It will likely die in committee.

He's wasting time as far as I'm concerned, and the idea of a draft to "make a point" is disgusting and careless.

Doesn't he have other stuff to do now as chairman of a committee? He should stop fuckin around with this bizarre pet issue of his and try to end this war and actually hold Bush accountable for his actions.

If he's not willing to stop this bullshit, he should just fuckin retire.

[AzDar]

65. Point well-taken, Charlie...now, STFU before this becomes a Repuke

rallying-cry.
If Rangel REALLY wants to end the Iraq Occupation, he should work on stopping the FUNDING.
No goddamned money, no goddamned war.

[kevin881]

68. Rangel is a MORON for bringing this up.

Now they will say "see the Dems, they want to draft your kids!"

[YellingTuna]

89. I was thinking of that

What a great political ploy for the neocons in the 08 election. I wonder what the wonderful Fox news is already spreading...

[kevin881]

100. This is one thing that the GOP does better than the Dems....

they stick to whatever party line is put out there.

[pnwmom]

110. He's grandstanding for his constituents.

This won't hurt him with them.

[Mithheru]

72. Would the service be back-dated or retro-active?

"He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service."

I've already done my part in my own way working at Sea-Tac airport for 4-1/2 years as a pre-board / baggage screener. I saw somewhere he wants to increase the age to 42. I'm 34 and not interested in running off to take part in more of these bums' nonsense. All these rich, fatcat, politicians sit on their ass and order us off to die for them; Democrat and Republican alike.

Not me! The ONLY way I would go to war is if I'm surrounded by rich kids.

One more thing; "great republic"? I don't know why but I don't like the sound of those 2 words.

[smb]

142. Rangel Is An Idiot

"young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic"

They already do that: it's called GETTING A JOB.

[Megahurtz]

199. I don't like that "Great Republic" statement either.

I smell a rat.:grr:

(No offense to Rats)

[citizen snips]

73. Why waste the time with a bill that is not going to pass?

[Nick Fallon]

79. I second that

It didn't work the first time.

[citizen snips]

189. welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Zhade]

80. Challenges of Iran, North Korea and Iraq?

Is he actually suggesting military force against these countries is even justified?

[GoldenOldie]

85. Challenges of Americans to make any sacrifices?

I am old enough to remember my father and uncles leaving our families to fight WWII. I remember my mother working 12-hour days as a "Rosie The Riveter," while my 14-yr old sister helped to get us younger kids off to school, help clean the house, cook and get our homework done. In our spare time, we collected tin-foil, tincans, papers, and bought war-stamps to support the war effort. Our sugar, tires, shoes etc., etc., were rationed because it took all Americans sacrifices to support the War and the Troops.

I spent my entire adult career working as a civilian analyst beside men and women who had served in VietNam. My father again was called as a civilian vehicle/tank and big guns, problem advisor to the actual battle fields in VietNam ....... he was 60-yrs old and the outpost which he was serving was overrun by the VietCong and many of the young men had died at his feet and in his arms. I worked within a Army Medical Hospital that functioned as an advisor to the TV production of MASH for 15-yrs and another 15-yrs with Army Engineering Specialists and Officers who served their time in Nam. I have never forgotten a one of them and hold them in highest respect.

I now sit and watch and listen to the daily news of the abuse of our troops and the daily tally of dead and wounded. I have attended 2-military funerals....both students of my teaching daughter. One a young girl of great promise....18years old, whose dream was to become a soldier and serve her country. The other a young man....21 years old, whose dream was to follow in his fathers footsteps and become a US Marine. Jeff served his tour and re-enlisted because he and his wife had become pregnant and they needed the insurance. Jeff was killed at Fallujai (sp) 1-month before his child was born.

Yesterday, I watched the Local and National News and viewed thousands of young men, who looked old enough to serve their country, lining up 24-hrs prior to store openings just to be first to buy a goddamn $600.00 game that will be outdated within 6-months. They fought each other and trampled one another just to buy a game??? I doubt that many of them even took the time to vote.

It makes me and I am sure that it makes millions of older Americans both civilians and veterans who remember WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and the sacrifices that were made, unbeleivable sad. Sad that the only time the shoppers of toys and goodies seem to stop and reflect what is happening to our Nation, our military and the rest of the world, is when the word D-R-A-F-T is mentioned. Parents are sending their kids off to Military Colleges ie., VA Military Institute, etc., etc., for their sons and daughters to get a good education, dress up in military uniform, have photos taken to be placed on the mantle and listed in their resumes.......yet they have no intention on actual military service for the Nation???

I get what Charlie Rangle is saying.....

[Zhade]

87. Unfortunately, part of what he's saying is "we need to fight this war".

We don't need to fight this illegal war.

We never did.

No WMDs, no threat, remember?

[pnwmom]

111. The American public has expressed strong disapproval of the war in Iraq.

That was the whole message of the elections. That is why we now control the House and the Senate.

And this came about without a draft. If we take any steps now in that direction, millions of Americans will feel betrayed. They have NOT given the Democrats a mandate to institute a draft. The mandate is to end the war.

[Megahurtz]

202. Sorry, those days are gone.

We are now in 2006 and things are much different.

[YellingTuna]

88. Thats what I was wondering....

Was he trying to be sarcastic....or does he mean it? Wow what Irony...

[maryallen]

81. Are you naive?

Rangel is simply saying that if we are going to fight "endless wars," it is only fair that middle and upper class young men and women -- of all races -- have an equal opportunity to "protect our country."

[pnwmom]

112. I'm not naive. He's a grandstander.

He's doing this for attention. Americans, when we voted to give Dems control of the House and the Senate, sent a message about Iraq. We want to get out.

We did NOT send a message to institute a draft, so that Bush and the neo-cons have more bodies to put into their endless wars.

[maryallen]

168. Rangel is NOT a grand-stander:

And even if he is, hip-hip-hooraY for him!

Listen up, whatever-mom:
Somebody has GOT to do something to bring attention to the expendable young men and women who are dying in Iraq for a LIE! Whatever it takes to get the eyes and ears of America, I say go for it ... and encourage others to do the same.

My son is in the Air Force. Since he's been in, he's done time overseas in Iraq (Kirkuk), Oman, and Germany. He's stateside now, but if you've been paying attention -- and many haven't because they don't have children/husbands involved -- it's only a matter of time before he HAS TO GO BACK TO IRAQ because the American military doesn't have enough VOLUNTEERS.

So whatever-mom, Rangel is trying desperately to help our young people in the military. Can't you see that and support him, rather than calling him foolish names? And if you can't, please sit down, get out of the way, and let someone else lead.

[Zhade]

187. So other kids should be forced to fight in an illegal war because yours volunteered?

How does one politely say "fuck that"?

[Megahurtz]

203. FUCK NO I'm not supporting him!

And I did not vote for this either! :mad:

[Ron Green]

83. I completely agree with Rangel, and I've been against this war from before it started.

I have two draft-age children, I'm a disabled US Army vet, and I understand that this bullshit "all-volunteer" mercenary military is just another way to privatize what should be the most public of all duties: serving one's country as a young person.

Some of the posters on this thread just don't get it: It's either "Not with my child, you don't" or "Democrats will be blamed for this" or "There will be more cannon fodder for unlimited wars."

WRONG!! The truth is that we have become so disengaged from our public arena, including the military one, that we're in danger of being nothing but a bunch of consumers, hiring sons (and daughters) of the disenfranchised to fight for global hegemony and petroleum so that we can continue to shop.

[pnwmom]

97. Were you drafted or did you volunteer?

[Ron Green]

144. In 1966 it wasn't much of a choice.

I volunteered to "avoid the draft" so that I could get a little more choice about my duty station and training. Not that it worked out the way I imaginged, however.

:)

[Joe Bacon]

84. Any draft should START with George P Bush and the Trash Twins!

They should be drafted FIRST. Then draft EVERY child of Every Congressman. No exceptions.

[stepnw1f]

86. Because It Won't Happen

and he knows it.... Republicans will never go along with a draft that includes their own children.

[Lasher]

90. Drafting people into the military to stop war?

It's like screwing to promote virginity. And if Democrats start the draft back up the Republicans are going to be blamed for it? That is based in logic to the same degree. And the affleuent would receive no preferential treatment? Equally laughable.

Great. Just when most people have the correct impression that Republicans are the ones who start wars, along comes this jughead.

I have never understood how people can rationalize forcing 19 year olds into slavery for 2 years for no good reason.

[pnwmom]

98. Yup. We take all the heat for proposing a draft

the Repubs take us up on it, and Bush and the neocons get all the bodies they need for their lunatic plans of worldwide domination.

I see nothing but wins in this -- for the neocons.

[dailykoff]

94. Bad idea, and he needs to lay off it.

We got the joke already, now stick to Ways and Means before your stupid bill accidentally on purpose passes, okay Charlie?

[Cookie wookie]

95. Goodbye to 08...

So why is it exactly that any democrat in his or her right mind would even begin to think of reinstating the draft to provide more kids to fight in an illegal, immoral war started by Republicans so they could steal oil ......?

Earth to Rangel -- we need to get out not escalate.

The Republicans must be licking their chops over this one. Why do I feel like we're watching one of those enabler dramas where someone needs to go to Alanon or something (please, quick).

[The Count]

101. Oh, yeah, what possibly could go wrong with that? W wants to escalate.

Rangel's bill will be approved

exactly in the version he submits it - no loopholes for the rich

seems like the right way to make a point...What's a few dead if we show them?:sarcasm:

[smb]

143. Riiiiight....

Rangel's bill will be approved exactly in the version he submits it - no loopholes for the rich

What color is the sky on your planet?

[Zhade]

190. Too bad the current version DOES have a loophole the rich can exploit.

Look into it - it's not the same as the previous version. There's a "national service" clause.

[Infinite Hope]

105. The hidden purpose...

force Republicans (Bush) to oppose additional troops and thus force their hand: "You won't provide enough troops to do the job, so let's withdraw.

Either way, it's a mistake.

[Irreverend IX]

118. Utter insanity.

We have the Republicans on the ropes, and what do we do...? We swan dive off a skyscraper! The Democrats could sponsor an amendment making homosexuality mandatory and renaming the country "The Communist States of America" and get less of a backlash. Here I thought authorizing a new assault weapons ban would be the dumbest thing the party could do, but if Democrats try to push a new draft through the party will be dead and buried inside 4 years. Rangel needs to be smacked down hard.

[Lasher]

131. Maybe we could abolish the morning prayer in Congress

It could be replaced with a tasteful flag burning ceremony.

[provis99]

122. help me understand: how are you anti-draft people

any different from the Republican chickenhawks? I hear Democrats complaining "yes, we really do support the troops, those Republicans don't because they won't serve". Randi Rhodes favorite argument seems to be to attack her Republican critics with a charge of "why don't you serve! I did!" demonstrating her actions as well as words. All I'm getting from these anti-draft opponents is that its ok for the poor, volunteer kids to be shipped off to die, as long as their little suburban kids don't face a bullet. Well that sounds like giant hypocrisy when we accuse Republicans of doing this, and then anti-drafters do it themselves. For those who argue, well I'm against the Iraq war entirely, I say what about those liberals who proudly say their against Iraq but in favor of Afghanistan. Have you or your kid volunteered to serve in Afghanistan like Pat Tillman, a true unselfish fan of Noam Chomsky, did?

[wickerwoman]

126. The draft is unconstitutional, period.

Check out the 13th amendment:

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Conscription into military service is pretty obviously involuntary servitude as is "national service" or any other form of work that the government refuses to pay people enough to get them to volunteer.

And I think if you asked all the poor kids in Iraq to choose between 1.) stay in Iraq and we'll send over some rich kids too or 2.) come on home and we'll find you jobs so you don't have to serve in the army if you don't want to... that most of them would go for option 2.

[Jose Diablo]

138. Although the 13th amendment

does prohibit "involuntary servitude", you will find that in a extreme threat to the welbeing of the country, one that has been acknowledged by "The People" (read that congress) making a Declaration of War, then civilians can be conscripted by their "neighbors" to serve the higher needs of the community, notwithstanding the 13th amendment. It's gone to court and the draft is legal if the people make it so using the appropriate legislation called a Declaration of War.

Why do you think the prohibition against "standing armies" was also spelled out constitutionally. That's another part tossed aside by the executive when they wanted to continue keeping the country on a war footing to fight the emergence of democracies around the world after WWII and the end of Europes colony empires. You see, if people in other countries have the ability to decide the use of their "commons", they may sell their resources at a rate higher than the corporatists want, it cuts into the profit margin, thus the "standing army" is just like having a thug break a storekeepers leg if he refuses to buy the glass insurance. So we see it's all resource wars, but these wars were titled "fighting the pinko,dirty commies" until the USSR went belly-up, and now we have a new enemy, the towelheads. Without a "professional army", with the grunts being mostly civilians, the army cannot be used to fight resource wars for the elites.

Ending the wars requires changing the army, and it's willingness to fight these wars just to be a thug enforcing crooks selling glass insurance to the rest of the world.

This war will end as soon as the conscripts say "Sir, no sir" as they stand with a loaded M16 in their hands.

We need a draft to change the army. Lifers hate civilians, believe me.

[Lasher]

130. I'll tell you how this one anti-draft person is different from Republican chickenhawks.

I was drafted in 1969 and I did my time. I didn't have the influence to get handed a commission as an officer like rich folks did, so I went in as a buck private. Big difference.

Now tell me how you are different from Republican chickenhawks. Have you been drafted? Didn't think so. Haven't served in the military at all, have you?

Before you accuse others of hypocrisy you should first put your own house in order. Chickenhawks want war but are unwilling to fight in them. Those in favor of the draft, most of whom are not of draft age themselves, want others to be drafted into the military to do what armies are intended to do - fight in wars. You are much closer to being a chickenhawk than I.

[Zorra]

134. in Vietnam, the draft worked this way: Poor kids got drafted and

sent off to die in a senseless war, while rich kids got deferrals in one form or another.

Take Bu*h for example - he got to go AWOL without consequence. This is simply the way economic privilege works in the US.

If Rangel believes rich folks will let their kids be drafted right along with the peasants, he's extremely naive.

[smb]

145. Welcome To The Real World

Everyone hires others to do distateful things he doesn't want to do himself.

Do you maintain the sewer? No? Then pee and poop in your front yard, you hypocrite.
Do you slaughter livestock? No? Then become a vegetarian, you hypocrite.
Do you pick crops? No? Then... well, starve, I guess, you hypocrite.

I trust that this reductio ad absurdum has shown you the vacuity of your argument.

(Don't waste time arguing that "national security" makes yours a special case. If there were human waste lying around and no food to be had, the death toll in a month would exceed Osama's wettest dream.)

[Dutch]

148. Because we don't support Bush's wars

I can't believe you really need help understanding that.

All I'm getting from these anti-draft opponents is that its ok for the poor, volunteer kids to be shipped off to die, as long as their little suburban kinds don't face a bullet.

I can't begin to imagine how on earth you think you've "got that" from anyone here, but I think the position of most draft opponents is that ending unnecesary war and the kind of poverty that forces people into military service is the best way to tackle the current tragic situation, not forcing all young people, regardless of their views, into Bush's hell-holes.

(BTW, I don't really have a problem with the stunt Rangel's pulling. Just amazed how many people here seem to actually support the draft.)

[Irreverend IX]

155. Vote Nader!

So you support Democratic political suicide in order to make a point? Average Americans are too bovine to understand Rangel's ploy; all they see is "Democrats want to draft your children!" How any progressive could support a conscript military is beyond me.

[NotGivingUp]

169. i'm catching the same drift...poor kids can serve...not me or mine.

[Zhade]

191. Why do you feel the need to lie about our position?

"All I'm getting from these anti-draft opponents is that its ok for the poor, volunteer kids to be shipped off to die, as long as their little suburban kids don't face a bullet."

Prove it. ONE example will do. Show us where ONE SINGLE PERSON against the draft is okay with the war. Go ahead. We'll wait.

(Nah, we won't, because it's a bald-faced lie.)

[Polethebear]

127. Ok,I watched the clip

He's trying to prove his point again about the working class being forced to carry the burden and he's trying to get the repugs to back down. I can understand what he's thinking but it won't work.Rove will have bush crawling over this big time and W is crazy enough to agree to it,just to screw us. The repugs would too. I think they are all pyscho enough to plain send the higher classess as well to satisfy their needs. Rangel could cost us everything.

[MGD]

128. I don't think this bill will die in committee as surely as it did the last time.

Perhaps this is one of those ideas whose time has come. The Army has been against it claiming that that they can handle Iraq without it; however, they obviously can not handle Iraq, North Korea, and Iran with current levels. One thing that is certain, if this passes, the war on terror is going to get kicked up several notches on the intensity level.

[Zhade]

194. Are you suggesting that military action against Iran or NK would be justified?

I'd be amazed to hear the facts that only you, and not the rest of the world, have that would justify such action.

[trogdor]

133. I doubt it will get out of committee.

I wouldn't vote for it.

[oneinok]

136. Bring back the draft

Bringing back the draft is something we probably need, but it would never be administered equally. Like during Vietnam, the rich and political rich would still get out of it with some bullcrap deferrment. Bring it back without any loopholes for anyone.

[Tight_rope]

150. "Bring it back without any loopholes for anyone"....The ? is how?

The rich/political rich will always find a way outta of doing hard time. Just look at Ken Lay...the fucker just upped and died.

[Massachusetts]

149. "If you want a piece of the pie.....

YOU HAVE TO HELP TO MAKE AND BAKE IT."


"He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service."


There should be no discussion here. Everyone should be on board, Rep. Rangel and his bill should be suppoerted by all. Stop whining people.

[smb]

164. It's Called "GETTING A JOB"

Everyone who earns an honest living gets a piece of the pie in return for helping to make it.

This sort of sloppy "thinking" is why it's so easy for the Pubbies to tar Democrats as pointy-headed pinkos.

[Nederland]

171. Well said (nt)

[Megahurtz]

204. Not only that, but it's also called PAYING TAXES!

No one should forcefully go die for some Politician's Oil-War!

[Massachusetts]

211. This sort of sloppy "thinking"

Have you ever heard of metaphors?

"Piece of the pie"= OUR country The United States of America and all the rights and privileges we are entitled to.


"is why it's so easy for the Pubbies to tar Democrats as pointy-headed pinkos."

Its irresponsible and narrow minded thinking like yours that will keep the Dems from becoming an even greater party that allows more tolerance of thought and inclusion of ideas of how OUR country is and how it out to be.

[smb]

213. Of Course

That's what you earn by being a responsible human being and supporting yourself. (In cases of legitimate need, it can be given to you out of the kindness of others, but that should be the exception, not the rule.)

Fortunately, most people in this country have a work ethic, so things work out fine by themselves.

[Zhade]

196. Some of us don't go in for blind obeisance to the state.

You may be cut out for blind obedience to the state's diktats; not I.

[JVS]

152. I'm not going to pretend to know if this gambit will work or not.

When I was a kid I was once playing with a small amount of gasoline, roughly a shot glass full of it. I was out in a clear area and dropped a match into the glass. The match went out. I realized that I had just put out a fire with gasoline. I poured the gas onto a stone, tossed a match, and it went up in flames. I wondered how one could predict whether a match dropped into gasoline would go out or ignite. The idea of whether a draft will end the war seems quite similar.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

156. Ego-vain Democrats piss away political capital and ignore working class problems

Between Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer and now Rangel we lose now and in 2008. What a bunch of selfish bastards with not sense of priorities and responsibility toward advancing an agenda that could actually help many people in coping with the myriad of problems in our society. Count me out if this is what we get for putting the dip-shits in a position of power so then can start pissing contests that only strengthens the pukes position that the Democrats can't govern. This is turning into a hugh disappointment.

[Exiled in America]

158. I will not serve.

Period. It goes against everything I believe in.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. Leave the satirical comedy for Stephen Colbert.

This ain't funny.

[AngryOldDem]

162. No. He's not nuts.

He's making a really salient point. If you know that you have the connections, the wealth, or the power to keep your kids on the sidelines while others of lesser means send theirs off to fight, then it's easy to back a war.

In effect, Rangel -- once again, because he has brought this up before -- is telling such people to put up or shut up. If this war is so "just," then they should have NO problem with subjecting their kids to the draft, or any kind of national service. Of course, we know that will not be the case in most instances.

He's trying to "bring the war home" to a lot of folks. I don't have a problem with that.

[Nederland]

170. Yes, he's nuts

If you really care about the security of this country you will be against the draft. Study after study and the sad lessons of Vietnam all tell the same story: an all volunteer force is vastly superior to a drafted one. The question then becomes this: why in the world would anyone want to weaken the US military? Obviously the answer for Rangel is that he is perfectly willing to weaken the US military to make a political point.

Shame on him and any Democrat that supports this.

[Q]

172. You and others seem to be overlooking...

...the 'service' part of this draft PROPOSAL. That is...serving our country in other ways than the military. Schools. Hospitals. Airports. Seaports. These and many more areas in society could benefit from people serving their country instead of sitting on their asses and watching the world go by.

[Nederland]

173. I'm not over looking anything

I simply believe it is NOT the the role of government to tell people what to do for a living. There is a word for forcing people to do a particular job not of their own choosing: slavery.

We fought a civil war over that one and I'm glad about which side won. How about you?

[smb]

212. Yeah... Good Thing We Already Do That

<I>These and many more areas in society could benefit from people serving their country instead of sitting on their asses and watching the world go by.</I>

Yeah, I've often felt guilty about that... finally dragging myself out of bed at one or two in the afternoon, sitting on my ass, watching the world go by....

Oh, wait, that's not how my life works.

I get up off my ass and WORK FOR A LIVING, thereby benefiting and serving the country.

[KingFlorez]

175. It's only to spark debate

It's to make people think. He brought it up three years ago and he voted against it himself. It's not serious.

[Megahurtz]

178. HELL NO! WE WON'T GO!!!

And Fuck You, Rangel!:argh:
What the hell is a Democrat doing proposing this???:wtf:
:bounce:HELL NO! WE WON'T GO!!! HELL NO! WE WON'T GO!!!:bounce:

[Zhade]

184. Wouldn't cutting off additional war funding end the war much faster?

And wouldn't it be more ethical than gambling with other people's lives?

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGD]

201. this should be interesting

:popcorn:

[MGD]

206. somewhat anti-climactic actually.

:(

[Megahurtz]

205. Oh but they can't do that....

and ruin all of that $$$$$$$OIL$$$$$$$??? :sarcasm:

They want others to die just to SAVE THEIR FUCKING PRECIOUS OIL!!!
:rant:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

210. Forget "good intentions," Rangel loves being on TV way too much, another loose cannon egomaniac.

[Judi Lynn]

216. Enlighten us with your evidence that Rangle "loves being on TV way too much,"

and your claim Rangel, a long-time Congressional veteran who also served his country in the Korean War with honors, is a "loose cannon egomaniac."

You need more than the fact you just don't like him to take a kick at the man in public.

[Massachusetts]

214. Yikes

I didn't realize that DU had so many Radical Lefties.

I admit the "pie" metaphor sucked....but, no matter how you look at it a country needs vested interest (other than monetary gain), by its populace to survive. This cannot be accomplished with the few who volunteer or by subcontracting.

WE all should have that vested interest (some type of service for OUR/YOUR country)at some point in OUR lives, as citizens of this country. The SAD FACT is, that the majority of OUR populace are more than willing to stand, watch and comment on the sideline (just read the comments in this post), while the few continue to do the yeoman's work. It doesn't work that way.

[Iceburg]

215. kick