Why did Charles Rangel sponsor that draft bill?

[fujiyama]

I understand why in a sense. He doesn't like the idea of politicians sending men and women to die while they keep their own children at home, completely safe.

It does make it difficult though to argue that Bush is the one interested in bringing back the draft, while a prominent democrat is in fact sponsoring it.

Electorally it's stupid. I personally am not interested in bringing a draft back just to make politicians learn a lesson. I'm a young person, am completely opposed to this idiotic and ridiculous war, and don't believe I have to pay the price for some politician's stupid mess.

Also, politicians will ALWAYS have an edge when it comes to protecting their children from harm. It's not as if McCain Fiengold has stopped dirty money in politics. It's just found other avenues of coming in. Likewise politicians will find a way to keep their children out of war.

So, Rangel may have "good intentions" and so may some of the other dems supporting the bill. Still, the draft is no joking matter and shouldn't be taken lightly. IMO he's making a mockery of it.

[andino]

1. I think that his point is that the War shouldn't be taken lightly

He wants people to THINK about their sons and daughters fighting and dying in this war. Once they do that then they can make the decision on the optional war.

[wtmusic]

2. Good pt

Not like the privileged will suddenly start lining up at the draft board.

Bad move.

[EST]

3. C. Rangel has had a major hard on

since the start of the Iraq war because of the racial mix of the soldiers. His stated opinions include the notions that, since black and hispanic are overwhelmingly represented (as well as the very poor) in the military, they also represent a huge majority of the casualties. His idea is that each citizen owes a certain period of duty to country, and he prefers military.

I, myself, agree in part. I think there should be a two year public service obligation for everyone, no matter who they are, in order to attain full citizenship as an adult. In other words, you can't vote unless you've served, not necessarily in the military.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. The reason against it

There is a very strong case to be made to keep the military and politics as separate as possible, and it goes back to before the American Revolution.

Linking citizenship to the military would invite a lot of trouble; the military is already functioning as an informal indoctrination society for conservatism, especially at its higher levels. And we haven't even taken on that problem.

Requiring any kind of public service is a nice idea, but undermines too many democratic ideals. But if public service was made widely available, easy to get into, and desirable to do, then we'd be getting somewhere.

--bkl

[EST]

6. Can't disagree

But my own point is not so much a connection between politics and military, more that the franchise should be dependent on contribution.

Many times (even now) I glom back onto the conclusion that there needs to be a test of some sort that one has to demonstrate some proficiency at in order to qualify to vote. There's no way that I'm happy with the notion that some idiot who, at best, only watches FOX and is mesmerized by intellectual catalepsy and essential selfishness (a strictly animalistic gift,) has the capability to cancel my franchise with his, even though I have made a major effort to be well informed. I am not suggesting that he should be a lesser citizen. All human rights apply, but in order to influence public office, one should have a demonstrated ability.

That should, IMHO, mean satisfactory completion of a recent civics course, and some public service. IE, you could get drafted to serve for a year or two in foreign service, peace corps, cleaning sidewalks, whatever is needed and wanted. You wouldn't have to complete this service. All the normal rights, owning a business, having kids, etc are not affected, but if you want to be able to vote, you need to know at least a little bit and have done some public service.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Franchise is a right, not a privilege to be earned

That's pretty fundamental.

BUT ... your points on citizenship are themselves fundamental to the cultivation of good citizens and a good society.

The problem is that you can't compel people to be good citizens, or even require certain behaviors that should come naturally from one's sense of belonging. Some of these reasons may be legal, but mostly, we've collectively lost much of our ability to function in groups. It's not even a purely American thing; it's world-wide.

Rugged Individualism is creating a world of Rugged A**holes. We've been promised autonomy, but found ourselves with anomie. Non-military conscription won't help that a bit, and raises too many constitutional issues besides.

--bkl

[AndyTiedye]

8. NO DRAFT!

A military draft provides an infinite supply of cannon fodder for
the PNAC Crusade. THE ONLY THING STOPPING THEM FROM INVADING MORE
COUNTRIES THAT THEY ARE RUNNING OUT OF TROOPS!

A 'public service' draft sounds like a nice idea on the surface,
but what is all that conscript labor going to do? What happens
to the workers who are doing that work now? What happens to other
workers who are strugging for better working conditions, and get
threatened with being replaced with draftees?

What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Don't fight the war!

[EST]

11. One assumes, with a governing order intelligent

enough to administer such a program and experienced and truthful enough to recognize it's value, that arbitrary "cannon fodder" draft would be an unthinkable concept. Not necessarily, I suppose. Even a cannon fodder draft would be useful, keeping in mind the whole reason for such a program is to teach civic mindedness, only coincidentally performing useful work. Civic minded is what we are, hopefully better informed, with a far better conception of the idiocy of pnac and enough balls to stop such crap, as we are doing now.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Except When They Aren't (Which is Most of the Time)

> One assumes, with a governing order intelligent enough to administer such a program

It is because we often DON'T have wise, beneveolent leaders that we must not grant
them such arbitrary power over us. It is why we have the Constitution and all that.

> and experienced and truthful enough to recognize it's value,

You still haven't made any case that it has any value. You just assume it does.

> that arbitrary "cannon fodder" draft would be an unthinkable concept.

They seem to be looking for special skills cannon fodder now.

> Not necessarily, I suppose. Even a cannon fodder draft would be useful,

...to those who like to start wars, and those who make cannons that require feeding.

> keeping in mind the whole reason for such a program is to teach civic mindedness,

I thought we were supposed to do that in school.

> only coincidentally performing useful work.

So now you want to enslave kids for two years either doing USELESS "work", or
fighting USELESS WARS, just to "teach civic-mindedness"?!? I know you don't
really want that, but that's what we would get with a draft. Except more likely
the non-combat draft would be used to displace union workers with sub-minimum
wage conscripts. The military draft would be used for the PNAC Crusade.

> Civic minded is what we are, hopefully better informed, with a far better conception of
> the idiocy of pnac and enough balls to stop such crap, as we are doing now.

We don't stop the idiocy by giving them even more power!

The draft appears to be part of the Republican agenda already (see numerous threads here)
and we are starting to use the issue effectively against them. It does not help when we
have people on our side proposing conscription.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Starship Troopers?

[aquart]

5. What a short-sighted view.

You think Rangel's goal is to punish politicians?

How about in a free society it is the responsibility of every able-bodied one of us to fight to keep us free.

How about Rangel is sickened by the idea of a permanent military sub-class, which is, historically, the beginning of the end of freedom and the start of decadence.

I'm glad you think your ass is so much more precious than the young people dying for this worthless war.

It HAS to be EVERYBODY's children. EVERYBODY's son, daughter, wife, mother, father, brother, sister. It has to. It can't be only one segment of us that bears that burden.

I favor a universal 18 mos in service to the nation. I have since I was 19 and my friends were facing the lottery. At that time it was only the boys who were ordered to go. I thought it should have been all of us. There should have been something for every one of us to do.

Either we're all in this United States together, or we aren't the United States.

[EST]

7. Citizenship should imply responsibility.

Damn right!

[fujiyama]

9. What nonsense

Did I say I favored sending these people to their deaths? I have a close friend in the marine reserves that has basically been doing the best he can to block the idea of going there. I value his life greatly. He's in college and working to get a degree. He's working to make a better life for himself and his nation.

I never said my ass is more precious than his or those dying out there. In fact, I wouldn't mind serving my country in low risk ways...and if the war were just and defensive, I would not object to a draft.

I will however make it very clear that I never volunteered to join the military, because I know that the military, just as every institution in this nation and associated with the government, is a political tool...and as such, it would be weilded this way, especially by a mad man filled with nut cases.

So take your sanctimonious shit elsewhere. My thread never objected to national service. I do object VERY strongly to national MILITARY service. I am not interested in fighting and dying for Bush's wars, and NO ONE that objects to them should pay the price for his actions. I'm not Jesus. I'm not interested in dying for other's sins.

[sangh0]

18. It's not nonsense

Did I say I favored sending these people to their deaths?

No, and nobody said or implied that you did. This is a straw man question.

I never said my ass is more precious than his or those dying out there. In fact, I wouldn't mind serving my country in low risk ways...and if the war were just and defensive, I would not object to a draft.

So, others can go into the high-risk war in Iraq, but you're pissed at Rangel because he wants that burden to fall on all. The war could be ended if EVERY voter with a child faced the possibility that their child would have to go to war in Iraq, but you oppose trying to end the war this way because it puts your ass in a sling.

So no, you didn't say your ass is more precious than anyone else's, but that's what your argument is, just the same.

I will however make it very clear that I never volunteered to join the military, because I know that the military, just as every institution in this nation and associated with the government, is a political tool

Yes, it's a political tool, but if a politician wants to use a political tool (ie a universal draft) to end the war, you object because it's your ass on the line.

My thread never objected to national service. I do object VERY strongly to national MILITARY service. I am not interested in fighting and dying for Bush's wars, and NO ONE that objects to them should pay the price for his actions. I'm not Jesus. I'm not interested in dying for other's sins.

The same could be said for many of those soldiers stuck going to Iraq. Many of them don't want to go, and they don't want to die for bush*'s sins. And when a possible solution is offered, you reject it because it puts you in danger.

Face it. Your argument says nothing against national military service, in general. Your only argument here is that YOU don't want to do it, even if it would help end the occupation of Iraq, so don't be surprised if someone considers that a selfish argument.

[AndyTiedye]

13. None of the Wars in My Lifetime

have had anything to do with keeping us free.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

22. Hear, hear!

:thumbsup: Look at what "Let George do it" has gotten us.

[Kanary]

15. From my perspective, as a Vietnam protestor, I offer you this:

I think my generation made a big mistake in abolishing the draft.

I say this to you because there comes a time when generations need to speak to each other in terms of experience, and in the hope of making improvements through learning. I understand you are angry, and if I were in your shoes, I'd be DAMnED angry. I'm quite willing to hear your anger, and to support all your feelings about this horrible mess.

At the same time, I request that you hear me out, also, and understand that I have some very strong feelings about why, many years ago, I came to the sad conclusion that I posted in my subject line about having made a mistake. I'm offering you this in the spirit of understanding, and request that you not lash out at me in response, but dialogue about it.

My ex was one of those who tore up his draft card and sent it in to the White House as a protest. I fully agreed with that. O cam remember being at one of the many rallies we attended, hearing speech after impassioned speech against the draft, and an older anti-war gentleman close to me saying we would live to regret this action, that it would come off as nothing more than a selfish move with no concern for the greater good of the nation. I now must agree with that gentleman, as the subsequent years have shown the result of a draft that is mostly for those who are too poor to afford college, or have no other viable alternatives.

Couple that with the observation that this nation has come to the point of having NO concept any more of a sense of community, and working together for the greater good. All is ME, MY and MINE. "If it doesn't directly affect me, it's not my problem" has become the credo most live by. That is going to be the undoing of our society. If it takes a year or two year required service, then that is what we must do to counteract this toxic attitude.

Most other nations have some sort of required service. I was surprised to learn that Switzerland, which is a country that is determined to stay out of "conflicts", requires military service, which also entails many years in the reserves. The Swiss certainly can't be accused of being either conservative as a result of this requirement, or militaristic thinking.

I think all young people should spend a year or two in service, whether that is public service, military, or peace work. No exceptions! We all would gain from this policy, including our younger generation.

I would hope that my generation is ready to undo a mistake we made in judgement.

Thank you for listening.

Kanary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Good points and I agree.

I too protested the draft - even though I was a vet. Even burned my draft card.

But, we were wrong. For all the reasons you mentioned, plus one.

A draftee is a helluva lot more likely to be disgruntled and more likely to question orders and policies that may require him to do immoral things, or get his ass shot off. In that sense they're a lot less "reliable" (as the military likes to put it) and thought must be given to the fact that those guys just might disobey.

Having an "all volunteer" military gives the generals more room to play with lives.

[Kanary]

19. Great addition-- had to come from a Vet, which qualification, alas, I lack

:hi:

As you put it, it would add a necessary balance.

Here we are, the generation that didn't expect to live beyond 30, at the point in life where we can rightfully request that younger ones listen to our experience. How the hell did that happen, I ask you? ~~chortle~~

And, take note..... we're not afraid to say "We made a mistake". "We were wrong."

Maybe that's the most important point of all.

"It's hard work being right all the time", to quote an infamous non-president during a comic debate.

:evilgrin:

Kanary

[fujiyama]

21. I don't think

you guys made a mistake. You knew what was happening was wrong. You knew that mostly the poor, minorities, and the lesser educated were those that were shipped off.

It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Rangel's idea is right. IF a draft were to be put in place, then all should serve, but I'm too cynical to believe that his bill would somehow force the rich and powerful have their sons and daughters serve. They WILL find a way out of it.

Also, I ultimately believe that the state has NO RIGHT to coerce people into serving in the military. I do think the state and federal govevrnments should offer incentives for people that wish to serve in the community - especially in areas like education and helping kids in inner cities, etc.

Also, thank you for your polite tone. I really didn't like the way some other posters dismissed my concerns. It was absolutely unecessary. I don't have the slightest interest in being cannon fodder for Bush or any other politician. I also don't believe that one MUST be willing to die for their nation in order to serve it.

[TahitiNut]

23. Well said, K'!

I was a "pre-lottery" draftee. I was sent to Vietnam.

I saw the lottery as a small improvement.

I saw the "all volunteer" professional military as a disaster instantly, as did my WW2 veteran "Neal Deal Democrat" uncle - who took the GI Bill, got his Masters in PoliSci (Magna cum Laude) at MSU and served in Governor Soapy Williams' cabinet.

12-48 months. male and female. gay and straight. of all abilities, even if wheelchair-bound. Military, Peace Corps, VISTA, Public Health Service, etc.

Democracy must be fully participatory.


On edit: If we had an "all volunteer" military during Vietnam, we'd still be there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. He's being realistic. BushCo wants war. Somebody has to fight.

If Bush, or Kerry, continue to ignite conflicts, somebody is going to have to go and do the dirty work. Pretending that it can be done by smart bombs and long range missles has been proven (again) to be nonsense.

So, also, has the attempt to do it by proxie with surrogates doing the fighting while our generals sit back and give orders.

I haven't noticed long lines of adolescents fighting their way into the recruiting offices and patriotically demanding to sign up so they can play soldier and wear snappy uniforms.

Rangel simply pointed out the truth. If you're all hot for war, get ready to pay for it with your or your kids blood.

[immoderate]

20. It was preemptive

Rangel's bill allows for no loopholes. The elites cannot escape. Any other draft bill (and there will be one) has to go around Rangel's. It keeps the Republicans honest, and so, in a sense prevents the draft.

--IMM

[951]

25. Why? Because Charles Rangel like Zell Miller and Joe Liberman

are moles for the RW agenda.