Can someone Please explain why Rangel keeps introducing this bill?

[Emit]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iPXPNTztnrsJ:thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z%3Fc109:H.R.4752.IH:+HR+4752+IH+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

H. R. 4752
To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 14, 2006

Status:H.R.4752
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 2/14/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.2723
Latest Major Action: 2/23/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

[Kagemusha]

1. He doesn't think enough rich white kids fear death and maiming.

You asked.

[AndyTiedye]

6. They'll Take After Dear Leader and Get Into "Champagne" Units

Conscription isn't fair. It never has been fair. It never will be fair.

Children of the rich and powerful only get in harms way if they want to. Like John Kerry.

[susanna]

10. ...and you answered. Correctly, I might add. n/t

[peace frog]

68. And he's got a point

As long as there are absolutely NO DEFERMENTS GIVEN then affluent white (read: Republican) young people (women are not exempt under this legislation) will be sent to war. THAT oughta rock their smug, self-satisfied little world, heh heh.

[libhill]

80. Hey -

they all favor this war so much, and they're all so patriotic, I'm sure they won't mind at all sending their sons and daughters to be killed and maimed. And when the flag drapped coffins begin to arrive, all they have to do is wave their little flags, and shout "Gawd Bless Amurka", like they expect the rest of us to do. That'll make everythang A-ok.

[peace frog]

88. LOL

"when the flag drapped coffins begin to arrive, all they have to do is wave their little flags, and shout "Gawd Bless Amurka", like they expect the rest of us to do."

When that day comes you'll see so many warmongering Repugs change from pro to con so quickly, you'll feel a great disturbance in the Force.

[libhill]

98. True

and I've no doubt they'll find a way to blame the Dems for it, too. Poor ol' Bush would never have had to go to war, "if that damn Clinton hadn't been needlessly picking on Eyerak all them years". Those fuck wads are completely out of touch with reality...

[AndyTiedye]

100. Rangel is Handing Them A Way To Blame the Democrats, On a Silver Platter

[Tesha]

159. Ahh, the "Democrats should just hide under a rock" school of politics!

We've been running that play since at least 2000 -- has it won
any elections for us yet?

Tesha

[AndyTiedye]

94. Jack Abramoff Will Be Selling "Get Out of the Draft Free" Cards

You think any draft in this country, run by this bunch of robber barons will be fair?
:rofl:

It will just be another goodie for the ruling party to dispense to its premier-level supporters:
Getting their kids out of the draft.
Imagine what kind of contributions they'll be able to get for that!

[Snaggletooth]

157. The original poster left out a critical part of the bill!

As they say, the devil is in the details:

"(d) Selection for Military Service- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) Civilian Service- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2)."

That is how they plan to appear to apply "National Service" to everybody, while keeping their own out of danger!

[seabeyond]

2. if everyones children is at risk of death, maybe we will think twice

thrice or more before engaging in war instead of casually sending our poor over to another country to die

[physioex]

4. That's Exactly Right....

Did you hear what the mother of the fallen 20 something soldier said on CNN today. She said something the effect, "There are 2400 plus families who have a stake in this war and the rest of the country has no stake in this war".

[jerry611]

11. I understand the pain, but that's a little self-centered...

What about the families who have soldiers fighting over in Iraq today? I guess they only have a stake in the war if their kid dies? I have a cousin in the army. I guess that means I have no stake in the war unless he dies?

What about the Iraqi families that lost family members because of this war? They don't have a stake in it either?

If you are going to say that, then only 115,000 families had a stake in world war 2. Because is how many Americans died in that war. But the reality was that the entire world had a stake in that war.

[seabeyond]

17. you are right and good point. i bet she in no way intended to

offend those that have loved ones over there. every person that has a loved one over there have stakes in this war too. and many many many more americans go on through their day without much thought to those over in iraq. as a matter of fact, they dont want to bother their beautiful mind over it.

[physioex]

34. I think...

She meant what you are saying, but didn't put it in those exact words.

[Erika]

21. Please tell us the sacrifice you are making because of W's war

As has been pointed out, W is the only president who gave tax cuts during war time, and he gave them to the rich.

[jerry611]

30. The argument wasn't about sacrifice

The mother on CNN said that the only people that have a stake in this war are families that lost loved ones.

My question was what about the families that have loved one over there right now fighting in this war? They have no stake?

[physioex]

35. She didn't mention the families...

Who have loved ones over there from what I recall. But I am sure that should would agree that families who have loved ones over there do have a stake in this war however most people in this country (myself included) have no direct stake in this war....

[physioex]

36. She wasn't necessarily...

Talkin about sacrifice Erika, however she was talking about having a stake in this war. And I am quite certain that she feels that families who have loved ones do have a stake in this war, but like I said most of us (myself included) have no stake in this conflict.

[Make7]

49. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in WWII. ( n/t )

[Posteritatis]

87. And seventeen million served. (n/t)

[KitSileya]

51. Well, I dunno about that...

Besides the soldiers serving in Iraq now, and their families, what about the Americans whose lives could have been saved had the enormous amount of money being poured into this war been used to give the average citizen universal health care? Don't they have a stake in this war? Or the entire nation of Iraq?

[treestar]

155. Which if true proves that "we" are not at war

Though it sounds a little self pitying. I mean, we are instructed to be so grateful because of this sacrifice made for our freedom, but it's not really a sacrifice if we are supposed to feel guilty, right? If we "owe" something, there is no "sacrifice."

That is why it seems wrong to me when people claim personal power ought to arise out of being in the military or being one of their relatives. Any of us would go if the country were in true danger and we were the right age/gender.

War is a tribal thing. So it's not quite right for the warrior to get power on account of fighting for the tribe as an individual, while not getting blame as an individual if we "lose" the war. If we are at war, we win or we lose, as a tribe. If the individuals are to be credited with a win they must also be debited with a loss.

[AndyTiedye]

13. I Seem to Recall ** Said Saddam Was Getting Ready to Nuke Us

That wasn't exactly casual.

What it was, was a carefully-constructed web of lies
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
designed to stampede the people into condoning the war,
backed up by a nonstop barrage of propaganda on every
TV network.

I really don't think presence or absence of a draft
would have made any difference.

They lie, they say our homes are being threatened,
and that is enough to get people to send their kids
off to war if that is what is asked of them.

[seabeyond]

19. it was casual for the decider which was my point. and if they implemented

the draft today, our ass would be out of iraq cause the people of the nation would say no

[AndyTiedye]

24. He Doesn't Listen to the People, Who Are Overwelming Opposed Already

both to the war and to him, personally.

[bdamomma]

71. oh yes, people would be out in the streets

if they introduced the draft again, the bush regime is too wise to do this in a way if they did this (initiate the draft) it would be all over for the bush regime.

[AndyTiedye]

95. People ARE Out In The Streets

[AndyTiedye]

39. We Did. ** Didn't.

[AndyTiedye]

40. What If They Gave a War And Nobody Came?

[TahitiNut]

48. What if The People actually CARED enough to take back control???

Unless and until everyone KNOWS their ass is on the line, war is merely another version of "Survivor" for the average couch potato! ("Survivor: The 'Let George Do It' Edition")

I think it's detestable to shift the blame to those upon whose backs the greatest sacrifices are placed: our military service personnel. They are in service to the People and The People are abdicating their responsibility to hold their government accountable!!

[seabeyond]

52. People are abdicating their responsibility to hold their government accoun

this is what pisses me off. this is what i said in 2004. this is how i feel. yes

[bdamomma]

72. a country is as strong as it's people

do you agree with that comment?

[TahitiNut]

74. Yep.

And I believe a democracy cannot be stolen - only surrendered or abandoned. :shrug:

We get the government we deserve - it's sink or swim together.

[AndyTiedye]

103. Stolen By Means of Fraud, Deceit, and Murder

Our candidates don't deserve the unfair treatment they get in the media.
The citizens of Florida didn't deserve to have their names thrown off the voting rolls or their votes thrown away in 2000.
The citizens of Ohio didn't deserve to have their votes thrown away in 2004 and 2005.
The citizens of Georgia didn't deserve to have their votes thrown away in 2002.
Paul Wellstone didn't deserve to have his plane crash.
Mel Carnahan didn't deserve to have his plane crash.

Democracy most certainly can be stolen, especially by those who control the media and the churches and the voting machinez.
We deserve better.

[AndyTiedye]

77. You Have Mistaken Resignation for Apathy

How do we hold them accountable?

We write our Congresscritters, and they take so long screening our letters for anthrax that the vote has been taken by the time anyone reads them.

We protest, and they coral us out-of-sight in "free-speech" zones and enforce a media blackout.

We vote, and they steal our votes. Sometimes they murder our candidates too.

We contribute to progressive candidates, only to see their ads buried in the ocean of free Repub shilling by all the networks.

[TahitiNut]

89. Until the people who care are shedding blood in the streets, ...

... no matter how many are resigned or apathetic, we have no moral higher ground to call upon those who have the LEAST civil liberties (service personnel) to sacrifice the MOST.

That includes me!

[AndyTiedye]

111. We Are Calling For An End To All This Needless Sacrifice

Bring them home!

[TahitiNut]

122. Is it working?

:eyes:

[guidod]

126. Then that would make Donovan right

when he sang the song "Universal Soldier". :thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

47. Absolutely. Democracy is NOT a Spectator Sport.

Every citizen should be obligated to perform national service of 2-to-4 years, in some military or public service role, independent of gender or sexual orientation. The corruption of democracy in this nation is profound and widespread.

[seabeyond]

55. some military or public service role

that wouldnt be a bad thing for our youth at 18 stepping out of highschool and into responsibility. i owuldnt of done well in millitary, i wouldnt want boys in military. ever.... but some service. gain responsbility adn an investment in country adn future.

not a bad idea, no

[TahitiNut]

63. Yep. Public Health Service, Peace Corps. Americorps, VISTA ,

... all would serve to educate people about other people, bring people in contact with the vast diversity of cultures both here and overseas, and offer some fundamental skills and training which, for some, might be an introduction to either a career or a lifetime avocation. I regard all such service as "on the job taining" in democracy - something absolutely no book or movie can convey.

We extoll the virtues of immigration in building our nation - often forgetting that the vitality and 'common sense' was based on their first-hand experience in other cultures and dealing with adversities that today's affluent couch potato gamers never receive.

As far as I'm concerned, it's as valid to have such a universal service obligation as it is to have an 'involuntary' K-12 educational obligation.

[AndyTiedye]

112. You Trust This Government That Much?

My fundamental objections to forced civilian public service are

1. If they want cannon fodder, they will be trying to push every remotely able-bodied kid into the military
so they will make the conditions of the civilian service as degrading and unpleasant as possible.

2. They will, of course, have "champagne units" for the well-connected.

3. They will use it as a means of displacing public service workers and busting their unions.

With the current regime in power, any forced civilian public service program
is very likely to suffer from the above problems.

[guidod]

127. It should never be a program

controlled by the Executive Branch of Government.

[Erika]

3. He believes all should sacrifice equally

In war time.

[AndyTiedye]

27. The Only War In Which Everyone Sacrifices Equally

is a war in which everybody dies.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[Erika]

29. A touch histrionic

Do you think W and Cheney sacrificed during Vietnam?

[AndyTiedye]

32. W Got Into a "Champagne" Unit and Stayed Well Out of Harm's Way

Such accomodations have always been made for the sons of the rich and powerful.
They aways will be.

The draft wasn't fair then, and it would not be any more so now.

[bdamomma]

73. No they had other prioirities

that is what Cheney said what an a$$

[MADem]

5. Because he wants the RICH TO FEEL THE PAIN

Our Services are made up largely of poor kids with no options. Anyone reading this who has a kid in service WITH OPTIONS, who did not HAVE to go, I am NOT talking about your kid. He or she is a talented Ten Percenter, OK?

The rest have no where else to go.

I like what Charlie is doing. Let's let the complacent feel the pain. Or the potential thereof. The minute they call DRAFT, the nation calls WITHDRAWAL.

Smart Charlie!

[AndyTiedye]

16. The Minute They Call the DRAFT, ** Will Invade Iran, Syria & Venezuela

and it won't be so much a draft as a hurricane.

Not for the Rethug elite and their kids, of course, but for everyone else.

How many troops do you think he needs to implement the PNAC agenda?

[Erika]

26. You think the Republicans elitists will pass the bill?

Get real.

[AndyTiedye]

38. Of Course They Will, If They Can Blame The Democrats For It

Do you really think any of them are worried about any of their own kids being sent to Iraq?
AintNeverGonnaHappenNoWayFergeddaboudit.
Did ** ever have to go to Vietnam?

[MADem]

85. A Democratic Congress might, and November is months away n/t

[AndyTiedye]

101. Don't Say That Too Loud, Or We'll Lose 50 Seats!

[AndyTiedye]

31. Nowhere Else to Go?

I don't believe it.

Kids have been staying away from recruiting offices in droves lately.

I guess they must have somewhere else to go.

If you start up the draft, they really will have nowhere else to go.

[MADem]

84. Belief has NOTHING to do with it. FACT does. Some light reading

Overall, the Pentagon spends over $2.5 billion a year targeting high-achieving low-income youth with commercials, video games,personal visits and slick brochures.

•The US military takes advantage of an economy that increasingly squeezes out those without a college degree, the gutting of college financial aid, and the collapse of affordable housing.

•They never mention that the college money is difficult to come by, or that very few job skills are transferable from military to civilian life.

•The General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed in December of 1990 that the percentage of Black people serving in the Persian Gulf was 29.8% Army, 21.3% Navy, 16.9% Marines and 13.5% AirForce. These numbers are disproportionately high consideringthat African Americans make up about 12% of the US population.....

•Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. With an unemployment rate on the island of more than 40%, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.....

http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/resources/poverty-draft.pdf

But don't just rely on the Quakers for info--even the WAPO acknowledges it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html
As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

I noticed that, in war AND peace, a preponderance of my young subordinates in uniform came from the lower-middle strata of society. Good, smart kids, without economic opportunity, not quite "poor enough" to qualify for scholarships to college. There were exceptions, but those were not the rule.

More, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/military_recruiters_pursue_target_schools_carefully?mode=PF
... "What we end up doing is maintaining the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because they are the ones who are targeted to put their lives on the line and make sacrifices for the rest of us," Walsh said. "The kids with more options, we don't bother with them."

...Marketing gap
Those familiar with military recruiting say lower family incomes make McDonough students more likely to enlist, but that marketing also plays a major role.

...The obvious school districts that get screened out are those affluent enough that most of their students are probably college-bound. But recruiters also put less energy into underclass high schools, because they do not want prospects who might be ineligible because they drop out of school, have criminal records, or do not score high enough on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

Every three months, each service hands recruiting station commanders a quota to meet. The Army pegs its signing bonuses to the specific jobs with the greatest openings. Highly qualified recruits are much more coveted than low-scoring prospects, who can do only basic tasks.

But this year, the Army is relaxing its rules to help fill its quotas. The number of high school dropouts allowed to enlist will rise 25 percent -- accounting for 10 percent of recruits this year, compared with 8 percent last year. The percentage allowed to enlist despite borderline scores on a service aptitude test will rise by 33 percent -- from 1.5 percent last year to 2 percent this year....]/b]

[TahitiNut]

92. Excellent post! EVERYONE who can avoid military service ...`

... and count on those more economically-coerced to do the dirty work of military service, have a vested interest in perpetuating a system of economic injustice!

That "vested interest" shows up all too often! :grr:

[AndyTiedye]

97. They Are Lowering Standards Because Nobody Wants to Go to Iraq

They cannot fight a war without soldiers. They will have to end it,
just as they had to end the Vietnam war after the draft became untenable.

If they lie us into a war, they have a hard time getting people fight their
war for them once the lies have been exposed. This is as it should be.

[AndyTiedye]

99. The Draft Is Not The Solution to the Problems You Cite

the gutting of financial aid

The way to solve that is to make more scholarships available
to the rural poor, not to start up a draft.

I support the Jason Tharp Memorial Scholarship Fund.
Jason Tharp joined the Marines to try to get money for art school.
He didn't survive "water survival training" at Parris Island.
He drowned in the presence of no less than 6 expert swimming instructors.

Some people aren't cut out for the military, but the military
doesn't believe that and all too often destroys those people
trying to turn them into soldiers.

http://wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3302974

[MADem]

131. Oh, let's tell the GOP to get right on that! Scholarships for everyone!

Please...you don't seem to be GETTING Rangel's point of "shared sacrifice." These rich bastards are sitting around their pools, opening their stock portfolios, and watching the profits from Halliburton and Wars R Us going UP, UP, UP. They find war GRAND for business.

And so long as the poor keep getting poorer, there will be a never-ending supply of youth without options to fill those ranks, so long as the Services aren't too fussy about who they choose to go spill blood.

On the other hand, if they think, for a moment, that their very own little Fauntleroy and Rudolph will have to actually GO, and FIGHT, they might have a change of heart. They might actually look at the whole enterprise with a more jaundiced eye.

That's Rangel's point.

That Jason Tharp scholarship you cite is "nice" but it ain't gonna pay for much more than books and maybe library fees. It's NOT the answer, even if they do 'eventually' start being able to fully fund a student in future. And for every kid who gets a scholarship of that type, what about the thousands who aren't so lucky? They join the military for the lousy GI Bill. It's a total crap shoot--make it through alive, get a bundle in financial aid.

[AndyTiedye]

133. Drafting The Rich (Even if You Could) Won't Send The Poor to College

If they start up the draft, they won't have to offer all those incentives to enlist.
All you have done is remove what little choice they have.

You have this fantasy that you can draft the kids of the rich and powerful and send them off to be killed in the war.

The draft might be sold as being that egalitarian,
but it never has been, and it never will be.

[MADem]

135. The GI Bill was in place during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam

The draft didn't make it go away back then. It won't make it go away now.

http://www.npc.navy.mil/CareerInfo/Education/GIBill/Vietnam+Era+GI+Bill.htm

The guy who modernized the Bill, Sonny Montgomery, recently died: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/05/13/gillespie_montgomery_ex_congressman_modernized_gi_bill/

History, here: http://www.75anniversary.va.gov/history/gi_bill.htm

[AndyTiedye]

149. War is Good For Halliburton, But Not For Most Other Business

The Dow is just a bit above where it was in 2000, not even enough
of a gain to stay above the real rate of inflation.

The NASDAQ, compared to where it was in 2000, is at a ratio
that is only slightly better than Bush**'s approval rating.

The numbers say that Bush** is bad for business.
If it was just about capitalism and "the corporations", I think Bush** would be outahere already.
It's not capitalism anymore when a group of robber barons buy the government.

This notion of war being good for business is a big lie.
War is only good for the war business
and for some commodity speculators due to the shortages it creates.

Overall, PEACE is good for business.

Maybe that's why a lot of smart rich people are Democrats.

When Clinton was President, we were mostly at peace. We had the best economy ever.

[rinsd]

129. The draft has never stopped a war.

It made one war unpopular after 8 years of fighting. In that war 58,000 died and many more horrifically injured, of those how many were conscripted by the draft?

I will not vote for or support any effort to send people to die to improve the efficacy of the anti-war movement or for some sick satisfaction that a couple of rich kids will get drafted.

[nytemare]

7. I think the age bracket is a little wide.

I somewhat agree with conscription, though. The draft doesn't work because rich assholes can dodge it. If affluent families' children are at risk, as others before in this thread have pointed out, it will be harder for governments to go into war without just cause.

I think the age bracket should be narrowed, and that college should be paid for.

As far as I remember, England and Germany do something like this. It is more like when the kids graduate HS, they do their service, then they go to college.

It makes for shared sacrifice, which is something we surely don't have in this war, and didn't really have in Vietnam with the draft system, because it was avoidable.

[tenshi816]

83. The UK doesn't do it anymore.

National Service was phased out in Britain in 1960 (although there were conscripts still serving until 1963).

France still does it, as far as I know, because my husband's godfather's son (whew - how convoluted is that!) is half-French and did his service in the French army back in the 1990s, even though he had never lived in France a day of his life. I don't know about other European countries though.

[AndyTiedye]

8. This Could REALLY Bite Our Party in the Ass

When ** decides that he needs more cannon fodder to attack Iran, Syria,
and Venezuela, they will allow this bill to advance.

You are right that it won't be popular.

But it will be a Democratic bill, and our party will get the blame,
and the Rethuglicans would march on to total victory in the elections.
They wouldn't even have to steal them this time.

[Erika]

14. Trust Rangel

He knows the Republican elitists will never support a bill where their kids might be required to sacrifice. Do you see Jenna or Barbara, or cousin George P over there?

[AndyTiedye]

23. And *They* All Know Their Own Kids Are Safe No Matter What

Suddenly this bill is going to PASS and our party is going to get blamed for bringing back the draft.

Can you say political suicide?

[Erika]

25. No. I can say he's a gutsy military guy

who said all should sacrifice. He believes all should share the pain of war, as has been the tradition in this country.

[idgiehkt]

137. shoot, there is specific stuff behind this and I can't remember what it is

it's driving me nuts. Arrgghhh. But he is doing it for a reason. Probably has something to do with the poverty draft.

[tenshi816]

86. George P would probably be rejected anyway.

He's been in too much trouble with the law. Same with his sister.

I'd like to see that little Bush wanker who was on CNN a while back get drafted though.

[bluestateguy]

9. It's a stupid stunt that would not have it's intended effect

And yes, I know what he is trying to do, and that he is trying to stimulate a national debate. I know all of that and don't need it repeated to me, but it won't work out that way.

First, it just gives the Republicans the soundbite that the only ones who have proposed bringing back the draft are the Democrats. For people who get all of their political news from the corporate media and on the fly in bits and pieces, that could be very impressionable.

Second, say Rangel's bill somehow actually passed. Then look what he has done: he's just given the Bush War Machine hundreds of thousands of warm bodies for God knows how many more excursions into additional corners of the world. Do you really trust this Administration with even more military manpower at their disposal?

Third, does he really think that he can write a bill that will contain no exceptions for the children of privilege? Oh, he does? Then he's really naive. Write all the provisions you want into the bill. I don't care. The rich kids and their parents will find ways to game the system and avoid serving, or avoid serving in combat.

Fourth, I accept that the bill would mobilize anti-war sentiment, but at what cost? For every person who becomes a draft resister, there will be just as many, or more, who will dutifully march off to war. Why? Because the government says so. Many people in this country are very preconditioned to respecting and obeying authority, and are not very active in paying attention to geo-politics. For some people, some people, a draft would change that, but for many others, it would not. They would just go off to war because the government says they have to go. And then we are back to the problem of enlarging this Administration's warmaking powers with a larger military. If the anti-war movement is not stimulating enough people to action, then it's our fault for not doing a good enough job.

I no longer count myself as a Rangel supporter.

[Erika]

12. I am more of a Rangel supporter than ever

He has been in the military. He knows what he is doing.

He knows damn well that rich republicans would never sacrifice their kids to some trumped up war. Good for him!

[jerry611]

18. I wouldn't put it past them....

The neocons that believe in PNAC would be willing to eat their young, I believe.

[AndyTiedye]

22. The Fundies Even More So

Especially those whose kids are bailing out of the church as fast as possible.
This way they can MAKE their kids fight in the Crusade.

[Erika]

28. Huh? n/t

[tomp]

50. agreed (that it'll never work).

though i'm not sure that this isn't just an imperialist democrat at work.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

106. You see, this is when you WOULD see the uprising

Once this war is eveyone's burdon- I't taken me
five long years to come to believe that Mr. Rangle
is correct. My kids will still not go, nor will
I let them, and then the backlash will be unleashed
on all of our priviledged. It's time- I'm ready
for this moral fight.

[JVS]

117. yup

[EST]

15. Any country which depends on mercenaries for its defense, or

its empirical objectives, for that matter, is doomed to failure.
As ugly as it may seem, considered in a very narrow context, all citizens who aspire to exercise their franchise, or even have a franchise, for that matter, should earn that right through service. That service does not have to be military, nor should it be, given the wide disparity of physical and mental capabilities among the populace.
One of the big problems we have, right now, is that there are so many people occupying positions of power who have absolutely zero investment in the betterment of their country, or even the world, for that matter.
Is this a panacea, a cure-all? Absolutely not! But it will make some difference and, imo, any betterment of society is to be applauded.

One of the huge problems with the current anti-war movement is that, no matter how well intentioned, many of the participants have few credentials, as well as the fact that, in a direct, experiential fashion, the killing of American military, and others, has little relevance to the average arm chair patriot.

[AndyTiedye]

20. This Isn't Defense

[tomp]

53. if you can't get enough people to volunteer for your cause...

...you ain't got no cause.

try to institute a draft and i pick up my gun--but you may not like where it's pointed.

not one step toward war until we have a truly free press and a non-imperialist foreign policy, and then only for DEFENSE.

[guidod]

123. Well said tomp!!

I'll stand beside you with my gun!

[rucky]

33. He's calling their bluff. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

37. He is the One Who Is Bluffing. If They Call His Bluff, We're SOOO Screwed

If the draft is enacted, with Democratic fingerprints all over it,
which party will suffer the electoral consequences?
The Republicans? I don't think so.

It would be electoral suicide for our Democrats!

[rucky]

121. There is a 100% chance this bill will not pass.

that's the beauty of it.

How is Rangel so sure? Name one sacrifice that the elite has been willing to make for this war. Name one.

[wakeme2008]

41. He is an idiot

Rove wants any drafts to be an Dem idea....

[bowens43]

42. Because he's a fucking idiot.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

43. His Theory: Forcing a bunch of our kids to die in war

Will prove that forcing kids to die in a war is a bad.


Apparently the only way to prove that Death is bad, is by killing more people.

[BurtWorm]

104. I think he knows the Republicans have no interest in reinstating the draft

because they know what happens when Americans are indiscriminately invested in potential wars. It's like a brake on adventurous foreign policy.

[Vinca]

44. I wish this would come up for a vote.

The streets would fill with young people, like they did during the Vietnam era, and the madness might end. Of all the wars this country has fought, this qualifies as the "unknown" war. Unless you have served or have been directly affected, it's too easy to be completely unaware that it's happening. I'm betting Jay Leno could find people who have never heard of it.

[robcon]

45. Yeah, but with the Repugs against the bill,

the Dems will take the heat from the protesters.

[Keefer]

54. It actually did come to a vote...

...the Pugs "forced" a vote on it. Charles Rangel voted against it. Why? He introduced the bill.

[Judi Lynn]

59. Here's a Washington Post article on the event:

~snip~
Bush has tried to strangle the rumors, as when he told Iowa voters Monday, "We will not have a draft, so long as I am president of the United States." But his House GOP allies decided that was not enough. Yesterday they surprised Democrats by placing the long-neglected bill on that evening's "suspension calendar," a little-heralded device that traditionally contains nothing more controversial than renaming post offices or lauding volunteers.

The goal, Republicans said, was to show voters that only Democrats have made an official bid to renew the draft.

"After all the conspiracy talk and e-mails flying all over this country, especially the conspiracy talk we've heard lately from the Kerry Democrats, we took a look around and found that the only plan to bring back the military draft, secret or not, was the Democrats,' " Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters. "We're going to bring it out there, and we're going to put a nail in that coffin."

Democrats refused to take the obvious bait. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), called a news conference to say he would vote against his bill and to denounce Republicans as cynics who use parliamentary rules for political manipulations rather than for debates of serious topics.

"It is so darn hypocritical for the Congress to come forward and put a bill on the suspension calendar," Rangel said. "It's a shame that . . . this legislative body is being used as a political tool on the eve of elections."

Rangel and several co-sponsors said they introduced the bill primarily to raise awareness of who makes up most of the volunteer army and to stimulate debate about the administration's military and economic policies. The nation has "an indirect draft of minorities and the poor" -- people left out of Bush's tax cuts and struggling to find jobs, said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).
first had to obtain a parliamentary ruling letting them bring up a bill that not a soul would claim to support.
(snip)

"That's the first time ever, probably, in the history of the United States" a measure came to the floor in such a fashion, said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. His panel never held a hearing on the bill, he noted, and to vote on it "is nothing more than a cynical election-year political ploy."
(snip)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9479-2004Oct5.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a small group of encysted posters who ALWAYS want to rage against certain Democratic House members, as well as a few black community leaders. It's very interesting to see any one of their names mentioned in a post, only to see members of this group showing up to rave on against them.

Anti-black Democrats (DixieCrats) LEFT the Democratic Party in the 1960's, and joined the Republican Party.

[Keefer]

60. Thank you for that...

...but it still doesn't explain why he voted against it. Maybe I'm dense today, but I truly don't understand.

[AndyTiedye]

81. We've Been Filling The Streets Already

[MH1]

46. It's "Universal Service", NOT "The Draft".

It is based on the notion that freedom isn't free, and every citizen should make some sacrifice for the nation, rather than a system that coerces (either overtly or covertly) the disadvantaged to bear the lion's share of the risks.

I support Universal Service, and I am glad that Rangel has the balls to keep introducing this bill when it clearly will go nowhere, and will be unpopular with many people.

A few other governments have a Universal Service (some call it National Service) requirement. To my understanding, it works well for them. In any case I think it is fair, and it also increases the risk for the wealthier classes of starting wars, so maybe there would be fewer wars.

[tomp]

56. his "universal service" includes military service.

you're criminally naive if you think that the "non-military" service is really going to be non-military. the "non-military" service will be in service to the military, as in medical service for treatment of wounded or supplying the troops. they will find one thousand ways to connect it to the imperialist aspirations of the elite shadow government. and the citizenry will be under compusion to "follow orders"

foolish, dangerous idea! one that i for one would oppose "militarily".

[MH1]

62. So you think freedom should be free, no one should have to do anything?

Do you think people shouldn't have to pay taxes either? That is coercive, and partly goes to fund the military adventures of a corrupt administration - an administration, however, that the citizenry is responsible for installing.

I think with universal service there would be less war.

As for being "criminally naive", besides making no sense, that's rather insulting to throw around in an adult discussion, don't you think?

[davekriss]

76. Asserting the "freedom isn't free"meme...

...implies that you think our troops are in Iraq defending our freedom. That is a lie, they are not; they are opening investment opportunity for USuk corporate elites. Our sons and daughters are dying to improve the corpo-fascist bottom line.

We ALL will volunteer in the next just war, but the wars and overt/covert military actions over the last half-century are anything but "just".

"an administration, however, that the citizenry is responsible for installing" -- I don't believe that either. We had a bloodless coup on December 12, 2000, and the Regime consolidated its position thereafter by exercising election fraud in 2002 and 2004 across multiple dimensions (black box voting machines is just a part of it). Bush will go away in 2008, but another corpo-fascist figurehead will "win" by a nose despite trailing in pre-election polls and business will continue as usual.

The acute actions of the last 6 years does have to stop, and Rangel's gambit is meant to raise consciousness to the point of action by middle-class America. Rangel wants to see sixties-style protests in our streets until this war ends. He wants us to take responsibility for what the USG does in our names, and the only way to do that it seems is to make the stakes personal.

Note how Bush's popularity tracks inversely to gas prices -- paying out cash at the pump is personal, hearing that the sons and daughters of the economically disadvantaged die in an unjust war is not. I applaud Rangel's moxie! However, the last thing I want to see is the interim availability of "cannon fodder" for further imperial adventures. I hope not to see a return of the draft.

[Posteritatis]

90. It implies no such thing from where I'm standing

It simply says that if we take a lackadaisical attitude towards liberties, then we're forcing those liberties to live on borrowed time. Case in point: the past forty years or so.

I like the idea, in general, of people having some responsibilities to their society in addition to the rights they recieve from living in it. Note that this is not the same thing as saying everyone or even most people should serve in the military - just that it wouldn't bother me in the abstract if people were to put more into their nations than their tax dollars and an X in a box every two to five years. (Besides, if I tried to enlist, assuming I passed the physical, I'd almost certainly get court-martialled within hours.)

I'd like to see people having more of an involvement in the system in general, whether that be in one form of "service" or another, or simply being aware and concerned enough to participate regularly in the political process. There's definately not enough of the latter, and I wonder if that's because people believe they don't and haven't had a stake in it lately.

Of course people are going to stick the emphasis on this one on military service, because that's where the emphasis has been since the idea of citizen armies first showed up. That doesn't mean it's the only option, and it certainly doesn't mean it should be the only option. Kennedy said it best, really.

[JVS]

118. If you have to pay for freedom it isn't freedom

[tomp]

120. i think "criminally naive" is a far more meaningful expression...

...than "freedom isn't free". that's nationalistic tripe. and yeah, i think it's just fine on an "adult" forum because i think it represents a "truth" and that's good for adults whether they like it or not.

i think "service" to one's country must be voluntary or it's not real service. i think our lives should be service to each other, to the general good. there is no soul and no peace in forcing people to do anything.

the issue boils down to: should the government be able to force me to support IN ANY WAY a war i don't believe in? if you think the u.s. government's foreign policy over the last 100 years has anything to do with making the world a more peaceful place then the "criminally naive" shoe fits.

as far as taxes go, i'm not against taxes per se, but i am against them being spent on immoral purposes. i could acutally support an "earmarking' clause to taxation that allows a citizen to allocate a fair share of taxes to his/her most favored departments or projects.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Unless the bill has changed substantially, it is military draft...

Earlier versions of the bill required everyone, whether the ultimate service was military or not, to go through military basic training. Training to kill people is something to which I have a conscientious objection, as a lifelong Quaker. I have not reviewed this particular version, but that requirement was in the previous ones I did review.

The other concern I have is that non-military service is likely to be considerably less well paid than military. If there is a universal service requirement there should not be any coercion (requirement to go through military basic training) or incentive (better benefits) to tip people toward the military end of the service requirement.

[MH1]

61. "The Draft" normally refers to "Selective Service"

which in the past has been done by lottery, after classification of registrants.

I'll admit that I haven't read the most current version but I thought there was no lottery component. I guess it is selective in that people are given options.

I think if they know they have to do SOMETHING for 2 years (or whatever the term is), many people (guys anyway) would choose the military just because they would prefer it.

I think incentives should be based on risk. Military service is far riskier than most civil service options would be, so there should be some incentives. However smoke-jumping is pretty risky too, as well as other types of non-military protective services (like being assigned to forest fire-fighting).

Military would probably still be the highest risk, and therefore carry the highest incentives. I have no problem with that. As long as it is justified based on risk.

[Ms. Toad]

75. Dictionaries I checked

define draft as compulsory military service, compulsory military enrollment, or conscription (which has the same underlying definition). Selective service/lottery is a means of implementing the draft, not the underlying itself. (And, in any event it is the local selective service board which determines whether an individual is eligible for conscientious objector status - just as when a lottery determined which individual were required to participate in the military. You should read the bill. It is very much a military draft bill (of 100% of the youth, rather than a smaller portion determined by lottery).

In a quick read it is unclear whether the current bill has changed from the prior versions which required ALL participants to first go through military basic training. In a quick scan I did not find the obligatory training paragraph, and there is language which indicates that conscientious objectors shall not be required to participate in combatant training. I would need to do a more thorough reading to be sure - my recollection is that part of the problem with the original definition of combatant training was that as long as you were not being required to point a gun at human being (or a target of one) it was not considered combatant training - even if the psychological combatant training was well underway before reaching that point (and mandatory, regardless of conscientious objector status).

Conscientious objection status can still be denied at the whim of the local selective service board, and is typically very difficult to obtain. Those with a conscientious objection to war have historically been consigned to generally undesirable alternative service as a way of punishing/discouraging conscientious objection to war. Work was often make-work to be performed under very harsh conditions, and workers were often not released at the end of their two year period of service. This is a unacceptable way of viewing/treating the stand of principled individuals who believe that waging war is fundamentally inconsistent with serving humankind.

I have a strong objection to any system which forces you to participate in war - unless you can establish to the satisfaction of a body (dedicated to filling the military ranks) - that you really, really, don't think killing is a good thing. I have a similarly strong objection to valuing the service of those who choose to carry weapons more highly than the service of those who choose provide education, mental health care, or conservation services.

With a national service bill, the devil really is in the details - and a detailed review of prior bills, coupled with quick perusal of this one, convinces me that it is still a bad bill.

[CornField]

70. Agree.

I'm not at all against this. Matter-of-fact, I wish there was a way for my children to do peaceful civil service in exchange for higher education.

Now that we are facing a not-so-exuberent economy, we might need to bring back more of the Democratic ideals which helped the people of this nation. This is just one of the ways to do that.

[AndyTiedye]

79. Civilian National Service = Public Employee Union Busting

[Boomer]

57. Why aren’t the rich and the famous in uniform?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12990432/

Why aren’t the rich and the famous in uniform?
In past wars, actors, musicians, athletes, and the privileged served in the armed forces. A new book, ‘AWOL,’ explores why this isn’t the case anymore

Yogi Berra did it. So did Dr. Seuss, Humphrey Bogart, and John F. Kennedy. They all served in the armed forces. Today it’s much less common for the rich or famous to serve, but that wasn't always the case. During W.W. II, Jimmy Stewart and Clark Bable both volunteered. In the 50's, Elvis Presley was drafted and spent two years in the army. And after September 11, Pat Tillman left the NFL to become an army ranger. In their new book, “AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service — and How It Hurts Our Country,” Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer, would like to see more class integration of the military.

Both have a personal stake in their arguments: Roth-Douquet is a military wife and Schaffer’s son is a marine. While both would like younger Americans to sign up for national civilian service, they offer different solutions to military service. Schaffer proposes a lottery draft and Roth-Douquet suggests the military “convince” more people to sign up. The authors were invited on “Today” to discuss their book on Memorial Day. Read an excerpt:

Frank and Kathy
We never served in the military. And we certainly claim no personal credit for the fact our respective son and husband volunteered — if it had been up to us initially they probably wouldn’t have. We were raised in a culture, a privileged culture, that misunderstands and underestimates the meaning of military service. In our own lives, as we came to understand and appreciate the military, it was striking to us how enormous our previous ignorance was, and how entirely comfortable we were with that ignorance. And we noticed that we were not alone. People like us — educated, urban, in careers where you make good money, and interested in the good life, good food, travel — entire extended communities of people like us know nothing about the military.

We are trying to make the case that this ignorance is not okay, that serving in the military should not be just about personal preference. This is particularly important now when even the leaders of the major institutions in the United States seem not to believe this, when they ask so much of the military, and yet have not asked anyone to serve. It is as if our leaders have become shy about talking about the common duties of citizenship, shy of even using a word like duty.

[AndyTiedye]

78. Pat Tillman Volunteered. He Was Pretty Rich and Famous

Why aren't the rich and famous in uniform?

Well, they burned Pat Tillman's uniform, and even his body armor, after they killed him.

There haven't been too many rich or famous people volunteering since then.

[theHandpuppet]

125. One man is hardly representative of an entire class

And Pat Tillman's death does not address the larger issue posed by the poster.

[AndyTiedye]

128. Pat Tillman's Death Has Done Much To Discourage People from Volunteering

Both his death and the attempted coverup of the circumstances surrounding it.

This war is more of a clusterfuck already than Vietnam ever was.

Throwing a bunch of barely-trained draftee bodies at it would make it even worse.

[theHandpuppet]

130. But that is not the class issue being discussed

The fact is that participation in the military by the upper classes has been steadily declining for decades. Pat Tillman was such an *exception* to this decline that it seemed people were SHOCKED that he actually volunteered. I doubt that upper class enlistment chnaged little before or after Tillman's death, since it was non-existent to begin with. THAT'S what this discussion is about.

[kentuck]

64. Because that is the quickest way to end the war...

When sons and daughters of Congressmen have their arms and legs blown off, they would take a second look at the fiasco, quickly.

[bbgrunt]

65. because it is time to snap the sonambulant population

out of their comas. It is time to get people away from the stupor of watching things like Amerikan Idle and ginned up propaganda of the media lies and start engaging in THIS WORLD. It is time to get people to realize that all the material goods in the world do not make for a good world.

I wholly agree with a required National Service requirement. I believe that people should start asking "not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country"

The self-absorbed economics of today along with the privatization of our public wealth has made us forget our heritage, allowed people to become ignorant of their rights and duties, caused people to think the only thing that is important is their own economic wealth, and become self-satisfied as long as someone else pays the price for their security.

As a great author once pointed out, we are amusing ourselves to death.

[bbgrunt]

67. p.s. that author would be Neil Postman

[AndyTiedye]

107. They're Not Sonambulant. They Can Barely Even Get to Sleep Anymore

[Clarkie1]

66. Because he believes it's the right thing to do. n/t

[sierrajim]

69. My take

Is that the pugs caught him in some type of uncompromising situation and they are forcing him to sponsor this shit bill.

[sofa king]

82. Shades of Smedley Butler

"The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get." Gen. Smedley Butler, http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm">War is a Racket

[Judi Lynn]

91. You link expired, so I found this working link:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Thank you for posting that clear thinking from a real American patriot!

[sofa king]

93. Thank you, Judi.

He's such an interesting person. I wish his story was taught to our schoolkids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051118.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/27/112936/440

[wizdum]

96. Because the reason there were so many more war protesters during Vietnam..

was because of the draft. Without a draft we may be in Iraq, Iran, Syria (fill in the blank _____________________) forever. Unless everyone feels the pain of death in destruction close to them, they don't act. He's trying to end an evil. There should be no blank checks for endless war.

[Disturbed]

102. The Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan cannot

continue without funding. If 100% of Dems refused to vote for more funding would the Occupations continue?

[AndyTiedye]

105. It Can't Continue Without Troops, Either

If nobody signs up, they'll have to stop the war.

[wizdum]

108. Good point. Stop building overseas bases and put the national...

...credit cards on ice. Enough is enough.

[wizdum]

110. A picture says a thousand words -- Here is your answer...

<IMG SRC="">

Look at the number of minorities represented in this group of soldiers. Charlie feels that the poor are bearing most of the burden of this war, because they are forced to enlist to pay for an education to help lift themselves out of poverty. He is right. The burden should be shared. The quickest way to end this war would be to institute a draft.

[AndyTiedye]

113. A Draft Is More Likely to Widen the War Than End It

What do you think the Mad Cowboys will do with all that fresh cannon fodder?

[wizdum]

114. I respectfully disagree with your position on that one.

[JVS]

116. Any reason for your disagreement? Do you not think that having more...

troops would be helpful to Bush if he wanted to invade Iran?

[wizdum]

119. I think there would be so much public resistance to that idea from...

...the American public that Congress would be quaking in their collective cowardly boots. Bush is too dumb to quake.

Sorry for the short response, but I'm tired. I've been posting all day and just finished my memorial day tribute on my blog, so I'm fried. I'll pick up this discussion with you tomorrow, but your points are very good ones and deserve further consideration when I'm alittle more clear headed. If you want to, check out my Memorial Day tribute our fallen soldiers, here's the link. http://mysticalmaven.com/blog/2006/05/29/memorial-day-tribute-to-the-lost/

Good night.

[MADem]

132. And here's another picture, for those who think Rangel is an idiot who

doesn't GET IT:

Some warmonger, that Charlie....not!

[zulchzulu]

109. A mandatory draft is the Repugs' WORST nightmare

A mandatory draft would be the reason that people WOULD march in the streets like they did in the 60's against Viet Nam.

I'm all for it!

[JVS]

115. That might happen.

However I know that if there is a draft, it giving the warmongers more troops to pursue aggression is something that WILL happen, not merely a possibility.

[guidod]

124. Do you honestly think a draft will stop

this administration? NO DRAFT!!! NO DRAFT!!! :mad: :spank:

[Ron Green]

134. Yes, a draft, if equally applied, would indeed stop this administration.

It would shift the military and defense operations of this country from the private back to the public sector, where they belong. The right wing, over the past 40 years, has dismantled the economic opportunities for poor people to the point where they can be hired cheaply to go to war, while keeping the middle class socially isolated from the conflict. When the middle class start to face the realities of war, they'll put a stop to these bastards, just as they did when their own were drafted into Vietnam.

This bullshit war would never have happened with an army full of draftees.

[guidod]

139. I think we've discussed this subject

before Ron_Green, I remember your arguments for a draft were very strong and I remember having a very pleasant discussion with you. However, nothing will ever change my mind about drafting innocent kids because of sins of their parents. I agree with you when you talk about how the right wing has dismantled the economic opportunities for the poor, but the middle class is not isolated from being hired to go to war. Why do you say the middle class doesn't have to face the realities of war? I'm in the middle class and I'm as mad as hell! Are you saying that all this crap doesn't mean crap to me? A lot of middle class have to join the military because there are no jobs as well. I joined the Navy to keep from drafted in 1966, I know all the fear that comes with the posswibility of being drafted. Our children have done nothing to deserve that. Peace

[AndyTiedye]

143. Didn't Prevent Vietnam From Happening, Didn't End It Either

[MADem]

136. I do--it'll get the fatass college Republicans off their duffs, away from

their beer coolers and PlayStations, and out into the street waving signs and protesting like, dare I say, DEMOCRATS. When they go home to do their laundry and fill up on home cooked chow, they'll be fighting with their wingnut parents just like all the long-haired hippie freaks did back in the day.

[guidod]

138. Maybe I'm taking this wrong,

but it sounds to me like you don't care how many have to die to end this crazy war. Do you have any kids of draft age? If you do, would you like someone to take them from you and ship them off to Iraq? A draft would end nothing. It would only enable this administration to attack other countries like Iran. A draft is never the right answer, it would only slaughter more of all of our children. It's not our kids fault that we're at war. Think. :think:

[MADem]

140. You ARE taking it wrong

The minute the elites have to sacrifice THEIR kids, or even have to entertain the PROSPECT of sacrificing their kids, support for the GOP and their war adventurism will dry up faster than a martini in the Gobi Desert. Before the Monkey can even THINK about declaring war on Iran, they'll be beating down Denny Hastert's door demanding the bastard be impeached.

It's far more likely that we hit Iran with an AVF, not a draft military. Air power, and loads of it, with mopping up being done by the AVF poor and lower middle class kids. And, since there won't be enough of them--JUST LIKE IRAQ--they'll die in considerable numbers. An argument can be made that a Powell Doctrine approach, which WOULD require a draft to ensure sufficient forces, would actually save lives. It may not be true, but who gives a shit--it gets the discussion ON THE TABLE so that it can be DEBATED in a high visibility manner in public forums.

Look, I spent decades in the military. I've GONE in harm's way. I GET the picture. And I'd drive all my draft-aged loved ones to fucking Venezuela and beg Hugo for asylum if a draft actually came to pass.

What you don't seem to grasp is that a draft resolution, artfully discussed, and actually ARGUED before the public in protracted debate, and covered in the media, as opposed to quickie, quiet vote-downs, FORCES the GOP to put their money, AND THEIR KIDS, where there mouths are.

And their mouths may be saying "oui, oui" to war, but it's "non, non" if THEIR kids have to go. If THEY aren't willing to share the damned sacrifice, then perhaps the sacrifice ISN'T WORTH IT.

That's Rangel's point. I'm STUNNED that people can't see it.

[AndyTiedye]

142. One Of the Things That Makes Them Elite is Being Above All That

The minute the elites have to sacrifice THEIR kids, or even have to entertain the PROSPECT of sacrificing their kids,

That day you will never see. We'll see a draft, sooner than you might imagine, but don't expect the kids of the Pioneers to get sent to Iraq or Iran.

We HAD a draft during the Vietnam war. George W. Boosh** had to "serve" in a champagne unit in the TANG, never getting anywhere near harm's way
(well, he might have almost killed himself trying to fly a plane while under the influence of who knows what, but other than that…).

support for the GOP and their war adventurism will dry up faster than a martini in the Gobi Desert.

It already has. Have you checked the polls lately? Bush** is already in Nixon territory and still dropping.

Before the Monkey can even THINK about declaring war on Iran

That is the problem in a nutshell. ** does not think.

they'll be beating down Denny Hastert's door demanding the bastard be impeached.

I think they practically are already.

It's far more likely that we hit Iran with an AVF,

Only if they can get a lot more people to volunteer. That is why the all-volunteer army is a good idea. You can't have a war if nobody wants to fight it.

Look, I spent decades in the military. I've GONE in harm's way. I GET the picture.

That explains your enthusiasm for dragging everybody else in.

And I'd drive all my draft-aged loved ones to fucking Venezuela and beg Hugo for asylum if a draft actually came to pass.

well, almost everybody.;-)

What you don't seem to grasp is that a draft resolution, artfully discussed, and actually ARGUED before the public in protracted debate, and covered in the media, as opposed to quickie, quiet vote-downs, FORCES the GOP to put their money, AND THEIR KIDS, where there mouths are.

And their mouths may be saying "oui, oui" to war, but it's "non, non" if THEIR kids have to go. If THEY aren't willing to share the damned sacrifice, then perhaps the sacrifice ISN'T WORTH IT.

That's Rangel's point. I'm STUNNED that people can't see it.

I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly.

When a proposal for the draft has Democratic fingerprints on it, that leads to one of two outcomes, either one very bad:

1. The Republicans make political hay out of the fact that the Democrats have proposed bringing back the draft.
That is what happened in 2004. We WERE using the draft issue against them, with some considerable success.
We were making the argument that their policies would lead to the draft, and that the Repubs refused to admit it.
It was really just at the rumor level, but it was working! We were really making some traction on that issue.
So they dragged Rangel's proposal out of cold-storage and forced a vote on it so they could say that bringing
back the draft was a Democratic idea. Who knows how 2004 might have turned out if we could have continued to work that issue.

2. PNAC is preparing to shift into high gear with the invasion of Iran, soon to be followed by full scale war throughout the
Middle East. They will need millions of troops to do that. But they want to get the Dems to take the hit for it politically.
They will PASS Rangel's proposal, with a great display of bipartisanship and making sure everybody knows that it is
a DEMOCRATIC proposal, and that everybody remembers that when their kids start getting drafted. Democrats get run out
of DC in the next election, leaving the Republicans ruling supreme as the draft calls swallow up everybody EXCEPT the
Pioneers and their kids.

[MADem]

144. Well, to start

The TANG USED to be a safehaven, it isn't anymore. It's the front lines. With the age spread on this bill, it's only the oldies who will be doing the safe "at home" type work. The fit and young ones will be fighting if the Monkey needs them.

People are dissatisfied with the Monkey, but it's SOFT dissatisfaction. If he could make those gas prices slump so people can tool around in their pigmobiles again, you'd see his poll numbers inch back up. If he starts slapping Mexicans around, they'll be happier still. And if he can rile them up about gay people marrying, and Roe v. Wade, they'll be over the moon. He may even get back to the 40's.

What are you doing, sweating about "Democratic fingerprints?" There are only TEN on this bill, and they all belong to Charlie. Charlie Rangel is a KOREAN WAR VET. He is ONE DEMOCRAT. He doesn't even have to campaign to get reelected, he's BELOVED in his district. And the odds of his proposal being passed are about equal to my taking a trip to the moon. The thing to do, though, is GET IT AIRED. It's BEEN voted on before, you know. Or do you know? He tried to run this up the flagpole a few years ago, but they put the kabash on it, the vote was overwhelmingly against. He did it again last year. Here's what his cosponsor at the time had to say about the bill: http://www.house.gov/stark/news/floor_2003_01_08.htm At one point in time, Jack Murtha and John Conyers were on the list, as well, and long-gone Fritz Hollings ran a similar one up the pole in the Senate. And every SINGLE time these guys went on TV and talked about the bills, support for the war DECLINED. Which was their GOAL.

Now, the bill has no cosponsors. Rangel will keep bringing this up, so long as we are fighting a protracted war against an unseen, vague enemy, and he will do it alone, and that's just fine in an election year. And he's RIGHT to do it. Here's the text of the latest iteration: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752:

It basically says, male, female, 18 to 42, TWO YEARS--you gotta do yer part to make Monkey's America great.

Either you are unable to understand Rangel's nuance, or you don't know the guy's voting record. Take a look at this picture, which might help you understand Rangel's opinions with regard to the Monkey's foolish adventure:



Look at some of the other legislation he's sponsored. He supports the military, in practical and meaningful ways. He's doing this to PUSH the issue of the war, to make the fatcats do some thinking, too--they know, short term, that a draft won't happen, but long-term, if we start invading every country that pisses us off, who knows? Those ten and 12 year olds will be 18 eventually. But unless the issue is DISCUSSED, those fatcats won't think about that possibility. Did you ever stop to think that the decline in war support has been HELPED by his three runs at this draft business? He's holding up a mirror. I just don't see how you can't see that, or understand what he is doing. I mean, you DO understand that if the House flips, the Senate flips or gets close, and we get a Dem President and get the HELL out of the Middle East, this bill takes a hike?

Other legislation:
<109th> H.CON.RES.48 : Calling for the removal of all restrictions from the public, the press, and military families in mourning that would prohibit their presence at the arrival at military installations in the United States or overseas of the remains of the Nation's fallen heroes, the members of the Armed Forces who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, with the assurance that family requests for privacy will be respected.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 2/8/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 3/14/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

<109th> H.CON.RES.109 : Honoring Army Specialist Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former prisoner of war in Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 4/6/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.


. <109th> H.R.661 : To provide for naturalization through service in a combat zone designated in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 2/8/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

[AndyTiedye]

147. IT IS A ROVIAN TRAP!!!!

The TANG USED to be a safehaven, it isn't anymore.

That is besides the point. There will always be safe havens for the kids of the rich and powerful, just as there always have been.

People are dissatisfied with the Monkey, but it's SOFT dissatisfaction.

Despair is actually the word you are looking for.

If he could make those gas prices slump so people can tool around in their pigmobiles again, you'd see his poll numbers inch back up. If he starts slapping Mexicans around, they'll be happier still. And if he can rile them up about gay people marrying, and Roe v. Wade, they'll be over the moon. He may even get back to the 40's.

The RepubAssMuffin Poll will show results like that. of course. That may be all they need to get their next round of fraudulent election results believed by the public.
Doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the public actually thinks though.

What are you doing, sweating about "Democratic fingerprints?" There are only TEN on this bill, and they all belong to Charlie. Charlie Rangel is a KOREAN WAR VET. He is ONE DEMOCRAT.

That is all they need. They control the media. They may not get Rangel voted out, but a lot of more vulnerable Democrats could be.

Either you are unable to understand Rangel's nuance

I understand it just fine, but I don't think that most Americans will, once Karl Rove is through twisting it around. Especially after the bill PASSES
and people start getting drafted and being sent to Iran to fight the PNAC Crusade.

[MADem]

148. There won't be safe havens for every GOP voter's kids

As I've said, every time Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Jack Murtha, or Fritz Hollings, or any of the cosponsors of the original 03 bill went on TV and talked about the bill, SUPPORT FOR THE WAR DECLINED. When he revisited it last year, he went on the talking head shows again, and support for the war DECLINED AGAIN.

If THEY controlled the media so damn well, we wouldn't hear of any ENRON trial, no one would talk about Monkey's lousy poll numbers, and every station would look exactly like Faux. You wouldn't be logged on to liberal websites; the Rove police would direct you to the conservative, state-run ones. The media may be lazy, they may be influenced, but there are people out there still who will cover a story. And this is a story worth covering.

And as I said, those GOP parents without influence to secure their kid a safe slot aren't gonna stand idly by and blame DEMOCRATS because their kids are getting shipped off and killed. They're gonna jump in there and stop this shit from happening, if they have to march on Washington and drag the Monkey to the House themselves to be impeached. 'THEY' will become 'US' if their kids have to march off to war. The College Republicans will become like the college kids in the Nixon era, takin' it to the streets. All politics is local. They aren't gonna toe the line because they're REGISTERED REPUBLICANS...I mean, get real! They're gonna vote their interests, like everyone does.

Americans will understand it JUST FINE. Karl will probably be too busy to be much help, I suspect. Those lawyers take long meetings, it increases their fees. You maybe should give your fellow Americans a little more credit for being able to assess a situation, to include the self-interested GOP jerks. The GOP voters may be assholes, but they aren't completely dull of comprehension. In fact, the one thing they are better at than the average progressives is seeing how shit AFFECTS THEM, their lives, their wallets, their safety, their bottom line. Their greed and fear will motivate them to push for the same goal Charlie has--to get us the hell out of Iraq.

Charlie Rangel is ON THE RECORD about why he brings this bill up. It ain't rocket science. He makes a great guest on TV, and he'll have an opportunity to repeat his message for the third time:

"As a veteran of the Korean War, I know that no soldier wants to be in combat, but it has become clear that American troops have lost their enthusiasm for this war in which three-quarters of the troops have served multiple tours," the Congressman said. Forty-five percent were on their second tour and 29 percent were in Iraq for a third time or more. according to the Zogby organization.

Americans have been waiting for the President to give the country some sort of time line for leaving Iraq. But instead of offering some assurances of an end to the conflict, he punted the ball to the next President," Congressman Rangel said.

"The President not only left open the potential for the draft to fill the ranks in Iraq, he has also left the military option on the table as tensions rise in our dealings with Iran over the nuclear issue," Congressman Rangel said.

"I oppose the war in Iraq and I believe that every option must be exhausted short of war in our dealings with Iran," Cong. Rangel said. "But if our servicemen and women continue to be placed in harm's way, there must be a policy of shared sacrifice in which all economic groups are represented in combat. The only way to accomplish that democratic principle is reinstatement of a fair and equitable military draft." http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementIraq03232006.html

[AndyTiedye]

151. You Were Talking About the "Elites" Before

The children of the "elites" will never go to Iraq or Iran.
Those are the people who will always have safe havens waiting for them.

The children of the fundies already enlist in considerable numbers.
Usually their parents want them to.

There are also fundies whose kids are abandoning the church and fleeing the Bible Belt.
They would support the draft as a way of reasserting control over their kids.

Other than a few robber barons and fundies, nobody supports this war.

[MADem]

152. Many will escape, some won't--IF the bill is implemented at all

and there's a better chance of it being 12 degrees below zero in NYC tomorrow than that bill EVER passing. The goal, as I have said, is to get the DISCUSSION going.

Al Gore, son of a Senator, went. Monkeyboy, son of a Special Envoy/RNC National Committee Head/CIA Director, didn't.

But what it DOES do is make the rank and file GOP voter think. As well as the elites...because, you can be a GOP congressman one day, and be making license plates the next.

Hardly the way for Fundies to reassert 'control' over their kids is to put them in the military, where they are controlled by Uncle Sam and their immediate superior in command.

People swear in the military, and people are forced to confront, interact with, and TRUST people from varying backgrounds. And assuming they aren't shot, when they rotate back for R and R, there's titty bars, pool halls, and all sorts of nefarious entertainment outside those bases....usually a short stroll from the front gate.

[guidod]

145. I understand what Rangel's doing,

it's kind of like playing with a loaded gun. What makes you think there would be any kind of discussion or open debate, let alone have it covered FAIRLY by the media? What if the repukes don't go for Rangel's head fake and decide to block for him?

All of your thoughts are explained very well and make a lot of sense, but I can't take that kind of chance with the lives of our children. I remember the fear that I had in High School, in the early 60's, about being drafted and how long the draft lasted.

I will say this, if there were to be a draft it would have to include everyone and there could be NO exemptions. Everyone, of a certain age, would have to be 1A unless there was a physical disabillity. That means EVERYONE, Senators kids, House Reps. kids, the Presidents kids and even your kids to make it truely equally shared.

Sorry, I don't like bluffing with our childrens lives. :shrug:

[MADem]

146. Here's the key point, though

Do you think REPUBLICAN parents are going to stand idly by, as Johnny and Janie march off to war, and say "Darn those awful Democrats? It's all THEIR fault! Gosh-a-rooney!"

NONSENSE. Politics stop at your kid's safety and security. Those GOP parents may be assholes, but they aren't stupid. They know whose war this is. It ain't Charlie Rangel's war. It ain't the DEMOCRATS' WAR. It's a war that a GOP Congress gave to the GOP Monkey, all wrapped up in a big shiny bow.

It's why they're falling away from Monkey like autumn leaves in a strong breeze. They realize they've been CONNED. The reality is starting to sink in, and talk of drafts only helps it sink in to their core. If we want to get the hell out of the Middle East, and out of the business of adventure wars, we've got to choose leadership that stands up for withdrawal--and we aren't hearing any strong voices at all from the GOP in that regard. And the average GOP voter is starting to figure that out. They know that Representative Elephant and Senator Monkeybuttkiss might be able to slide THEIR kid out, but Mr. and Mrs. GOP Gasguzzler from Anytown, USA will likely have to send their kids to be shot at, maimed or killed. And that doesn't sit well at all...

These GOP families are like Nixon's "silent majority." When they turned on him, they turned HARD. It was ugly. It's starting to look like those days in GOPLand, of late.

[AndyTiedye]

150. Yes, They Will

Do you think REPUBLICAN parents are going to stand idly by, as Johnny and Janie march off to war, and say "Darn those awful Democrats? It's all THEIR fault! Gosh-a-rooney!"

Of course they will. The helpful folks on Faux News will have explained to them in detail how that DEMOCRAT Charles Rangel proposed the bill, and a bunch of other DEMOCRATS votes for it, and VOILA! IT PASSED, and NOW YOUR KIDS ARE BEING DRAFTED AND IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRATS FAULT. They'll believe it.

We must not give them this kind of opening.

[MADem]

153. Now that's just an absurd assumption on your part

You actually think Republican parents will say, "Oh, gee, Johnny and Susie, I know you wanted to go to Princeton in the fall, but here's this pesky old draft, and it looks like you'll just have to go do your part, because the mean old Democrats are sending you to war."

Come on...either the GOP voting bloc is powerful or it isn't. They aren't the damn borg. A lot of them used to be conservative Democrats before Reagan flipped them.

You're being a bit silly, frankly.

[guidod]

154. The GOP rubber stamping everything

the Executive Branch wants is where my fear comes from. I never have seen a more self serving administration than this one, there's no telling what they would do.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[LSK]

141. to end the war - duh

When the chickenhawks are force to serve, their numbers will drop like a rock.

[treestar]

156. Bush should be demanding this draft

If he were consistent in his position and serious that we are "at war."

[BlooInBloo]

158. Because he thinks that white folks should die in equal proportions...

... as nonwhites.

Duh.