Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft:Video just added

[cal04]

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

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

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

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft_2

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/19/ftn/main2199539.shtml

[Beelzebud]

1. If that passes it will be poltiical suicide for the Democratic party.

I know I for one, would not tolerate such a move.

If the Democratic Party is the one that brings back the draft, I'll be a Democrat no longer...

[mzmolly]

8. It won't pass and Rangel knows it. I think he wants the cowards on record

that that the hypocrites protected their children from the war while sending others.

[Beelzebud]

11. Cowards, or sensible? The children of senators aren't drafted.

[mzmolly]

16. Rangle's call addresses that.

I think several things: One, if we bring back the draft, people will focus on who is put in harm's way and two, if we do go to war, there's so many things that young Americans can and should be doing that we ought to have a national universal draft that includes women with no exemption...

He's promoting war hitting home for "everyone." Again, he's aware that he will only open discussion, set the tone, it will not pass.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june03/draft_1-08.html

[Beam Me Up]

45. It could pass if we were attacked.

You know,
like
Pearl Harbor,
Gulf of Tomkin
9/11

that sort of thing.

Shit happens.

Only, could be worse. Much worse.

[mzmolly]

51. Don't think so.

But according to Rangle, if it does pass, we'd be more thoughtful before exploring "WAR" as an option to future dilemmas?

[Beam Me Up]

54. Yeah, like we were REAL THOUGHTFUL before Vietnahm and ended up

getting 50,000 of our own troops killed and god only knows how many Vietnamese.

Jesus. What is wrong with people!

[mzmolly]

55. The draft was in place before Vietnam and included exemptions which

Rangel would remove in his legislation. This is KEY to the discussion. There would be no exemptions, no fortunate sons/daughters - period.

My Dad fought in Vietnam, it destroyed our family and he suffers from PTSD to this day. He lives on about $700 monthly and has to pay rent, buy food, buy gas and eat on that money. So spare me your scathing lectures.

I do NOT support a draft, I DO support raising the question "what if it was YOUR child/nephew/cousin/uncle/father/mother/niece/son/daughter" which is what Rangel is attempting to do.

[Beam Me Up]

60. I'm sorry to hear about your father.

Rangel is not just opening up a conversation, he is proposing legislation. I hear everyone saying "oh but it won't become a law" when my point is, it COULD -- all it takes is one hit either in our country or on our Navy in the Persian Gulf and it COULD become law, just like that. Doesn't matter whether it is a REAL attack or a false-flag operation or something provoked -- it COULD become law and that is what the Imperialists have wanted all along -- the BODIES to conduct their war of aggression in the Middle East.

And I don't care what he says about how "fair" it will be. When it comes to the ultra rich who are the ones who profit from war, I can assure you their sons and daughters will not serve.

[mzmolly]

63. I don't think it could become law.

However, people fight our wars now. Poor kids from poor families - mainly.

I understand why people are concerned, but I honestly think he raises a very important issue. And, I think he's chosen to raise it a manner that no one can ignore. Imagine if Bush had to contemplate sending the twins to Iraq, do you think we'd be there right now?

[Metta]

2. Uh, that's not what the electorate wants, Charlie.

And, I don't support the war.

[951-Riverside]

4. Sure it will be political suicide for us but it will end the war :P

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

6. It may not be what the people WANT

but it sure as hell IS what this country NEEDS. At this point it's the only thing that will fix a military broken into pieces by six years of mismanagement and useless actions.

[TexasLawyer]

15. Yes. This country needs a focal point-- right now--

on how and when this war will end. How many more groups of generals are going to stand up and tell America that "the next six months" are going to be "critical"? At the current rate, we will be in Iraq for the next 20 years AT LEAST, trying to see through successive "critical next six months".

Military conscription tends to focus the mind on what is important and tends to force action.

Are we as a nation, right here, right now, willing to sacrifice our own sons and daughters to this war on the other side of the world?

I think we will hear a resounding "no." A draft, even the hint of a draft, would unleash unrelenting pressure on our elected officials to end this war right now.

As I understand, the Rangel bill does not allow kids to avoid the draft if they are in college. That was a big loophole for wealthy kids in the days of Viet Nam.

[undeterred]

3. well that will certainly sober a lot of people up

But the well to do will still find their five deferments or ways to serve by protecting Texas from Oklahoma.

[spanone]

5. Mr. Rangel forgets that the rich and politicized are often exempt from draft ala *.

I lived through the hell of the draft. It wouldn't have stopped * IMHO.

[Beelzebud]

7. Exactly. Which is why it would be political suicide for the party...

[Nite Owl]

13. He's been on this for a long time now

his bill would have NO exemptions. It is really more of a statement, not going to happen and will expose the chickenhawks for what they are. He's been trying to make the point for years that the poorest are the ones that serve. The discussion should be interesting to say the least.

[Old and In the Way]

14. If I were Charlie, I'd have those loopholes airtight.

In fact, I'd make sure that the children of national politicians are given no deferments. Perhaps the appetite for starting unjust, immoral wars to help Big Oil's bottom line will suddenly lose it's appeal. There has to be consequences for these acts....personal consequences.

I say that with 2 kids who are of prime draft age.

[Nite Owl]

19. People would think of the consequences

of starting a war if their children were the ones going. That is the point he wants to make. It doesn't have a chance of passing but but it sure would go far to promote peace.

[etherealtruth]

17. I agree ...

I think he's trying to make a major statement pointing out the hypocrisy associated with who we send to war. I don't believe he wants a draft, I don't believe he thinks such a bill has a snowballs chance in hell.

I don't want a draft, I sure as hell didn't want us to attack folk around the world, necessitating a conversation like this. I like Mr Rangel, I like him a lot. I don't think this tact will politically hurt him (in his district), i pray it doesn't hurt the Dem's, overall.

[Nite Owl]

31. Won't hurt Charlie in the least

He won by a zillion percent and the young people who have to go into the military to get a job and a future see it as their only way to better themselves. They know what the score is. Rangle has been to war, he did his service so he has the right to speak out.

I have two draft aged sons and they will take them over my dead body, I'm not offering them up for the screwed up GOP war machine. All these conservatives who vote for these people need to know that they have to do more than talk about their form of patriotism, they go first then we'll see how fast a war is started.

[mzmolly]

9. Rangel is trying to determine the terms of the debate,

he knows a draft won't pass.

[Akoto]

10. You know, I've heard this reasoning here as well, and I don't get it.

Who would want to forcibly send kids into that hellhole, many of them woefully underequipped (mentally and physically) for service, just to prove a political point to their parents?

[mzmolly]

18. Rangel is making a point.

He's stirring up conversation in a way that forces us all to think about the consequences of war.

[Akoto]

26. Maybe so, but ...

He's bargaining for that political capital by attempting to offer up draft-aged kids like myself.

Many of us do not support the war, nor do we wish to serve in the military. If we were under attack? Absolutely, a draft would be understandable. Not for this.

For now, it likely won't pass, but it just might on one of his later attempts at stirring the pot.

[mzmolly]

27. It won't pass.

But, I understand your concern.

[tomp]

38. how the hell do you know what will pass and what won't?

i mean, really! how dare you offer such assurances.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

47. Because george bush holds veto power. If it made to his desk, do you believe he'd authorize it?

Just asking. :shrug: MKJ

[mzmolly]

48. LOL

I am comfortable going on the record "offering assurances" in this regard.

[tavalon]

33. Charlie Rangel

is not a new kid on the block. He knows it won't pass. He wants people to think and to imagine having skin in this and every war. There won't be a draft but if he plays this right, it could massively speed up the end of this immoral war and bring back a whole bunch of volunteer kids your age.

[mzmolly]

52. Exactly.

He's asking people to put their proverbial money where their big mouth is. I do appreciate the point, however I am sorry that it's lost on so many.

[bowens43]

29. Rangel is making a jack ass of himself and our party.

[Fovea]

40. You have a right to that opinion.

I just think you are entirely wrong.
Forcing the hypocritical, un democratic ideas that drive a 'volunteer' military out into the light is the first step in seeing a larger problem.

It is a bold way to reframe patriotism and militarism in American culture. I think of it as an intervention for American hubris caused by affluenza.

[Lasher]

43. It won't work that way.

It's a way to get most Americans to think, "Democrats want to draft my kids." and nothing beyond that. They might get confused about the logic of drafting people into the military as a way to prevent war. It's like having sex to promote virginity.

[mzmolly]

49. I won't agree or disagree with that statement.

I will say he's creating dialog in this regard, and that's important.

[etherealtruth]

24. It is a bill that he KNOWS has no chance of passing ...

He's forcing a conversation hopefully getting people to face their hypocrisy.

[tomp]

39. that is just criminally naive of you.

rangel doesn't need legislation threatening the youth of this country in order to have a conversation.

rangel is a stalking horse for bipartisan u.s. imperialist foreign policy.

[mzmolly]

57. Absurd.

If you read Rangel's rantings on the war and on this legislation, you'd know how foolish what you sound.

[badgerpup]

50. He's telling the repubs "It's put up or shut up time".

They want 20,000 more troops, they can bloody well draft them from their own rich pampered lily-white ranks.

Anybody remember that thread last week about the Repub female who had the recruiter come to her door? Said she '...supported the troops, but military service was not for her son or for their kind of people."
It's THAT attitude that is under attack here.

I've noticed that it's the guys who HAVEN'T been in combat that have the biggest hard-ons for wanting to go to war on the slightest pretext, even if they have to make it up.
Just about every Senator and Rep who has been in a combat situation (with very few exceptions, and their overall behavior has been really suspect) is very reluctant to do so. When they say that "War should be a last resort", they really mean it.

[mzmolly]

58. Yep.

We all must think DEEPLY about the consequences of war.

[Hubert Flottz]

12. You can't have wars in several different countries without a draft.

People who don't get out and vote, should be the first ones to go.

[dysfunctional press]

20. nuance doesn't work very well on the american electorate...

the repugs will be able to make LOTS of hay on this one.

i hope rangel changes his mind for the better.

[Little Wing]

23. You don't say

[Roland99]

21. Keyboard commandoes will scramble for safety anywhere and everywhere!!

[B Calm]

22. I sure as hell don't see any college age republicans signing up.

[raysr]

25. Without the draft

you get a murderous bunch of mercenaries. I don't know what the solution is.

[tomp]

41. how about no war? nt

[bowens43]

28. Somebody needs to shut this idiot up.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. First you call him an idiot and then issue an not very subtle threat. This is nothing new for the

Congressman. He's done op-ed pieces in the NYT promoting this idea, beginning almost immediately after the start of the occupation.

The people who are serving now, did not sign up for, nor do they deserve, multiple deployments to Iraq, with "stop loss" effectively erasing their time of service agreement.

They are carrying an unreasonable, egregious burden because the cabal doesn't want the occupation to affect upper middle class and high income Americans.

If he was just now starting to talk about this, I'd have some doubts about his agenda, however, he has said this from day one, and it's because he recognizes that it's the working poor who are literally sacrificing their children to give the cabal more power and money.

It's his wake up call to this country. The war needs to end. MKJ

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Good for Charlie. Bring the war home.

Charlie's not trying to reinstate the draft. He's trying to make the war real.

[cassiepriam]

32. I have said all along, a draft is one way to stop the war.

People will hate the dems, but it will stop the war.

[hsher]

35. I heard rumors of this during summer 2006. It can't be true...

Why would a Democrat say this? :(

I refuse to believe he's serious. I'm going to go watch the video. I really can't believe something like this would come from the DNC. We wouldn't do this. Who the hell do we march against if this happens? We can't protest our own?? (NO SARCASM - DEAD SERIOUS)

[Chulanowa]

37. He knows, you know, and I know that it will never pass

Never. It didn't the last two times he brought it up, and it won't this time, either. There is no threat of a draft being put back into place. None whatsoever.

So why do this? To demonstrate the incompetence of this administration. You notice that he says "you need a draft to wage war on Iran and North Korea", right? He's right, you can't fight four countries with a volunteer force, the logistics are impossible. But that is exactly what this administration wants to do, go to war with Iran and North Korea while maintaining current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. By offering them an opportunity to have the wars they want, via this draft bill, Rangel shows the nation what foolish chickenhawks we have. Even the most pro-war Republicans will never vote for a draft, it's political suicide.

It shows the nation that these war pimps are worthless cowards who aren't ready and willing to fulfil their own rhetoric. It reduces their calls for invasion and occupation as nothing more than ridiculous and illegitimate demands to get rich on the backs of our volunteer forces, and displays their callous disregard for those volunteers.

It's all quite scripted.

[hsher]

42. I hope you're right :(

All I know is that freaked me out.

[Chulanowa]

46. If I remember, he's put it forth every year since 2003

Unless the Democrats we elected are genuinely stupid, along with a sudden reversal from the Republicans, we have nothing to worry about.

[electron_blue]

36. the draft will not help. Quit dreaming.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. Wow, it's amazing the number of DU'ers who are perfectly happy with the status quo.

THe ones who are saying sacrificing the children of the working poor to enrich the cabal is just fine. What Rangel is saying, and has been saying since 2003, if the cabal wants to war to continue, everyone in this country should have to shoulder their fair share, rather than just a few carrying the whole, huge load. And, proposing a draft, that is color blind, gender blind and economic blind is the only way.

OF COURSE it won't pass a vote in the house. However, those who believe the current situation is just fine, I don't understand. (speaking as a veteran, myself). MKJ

[mzmolly]

53. It's unfortunate that the point of his tactic

is lost on so many of "us."

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

56. .

There's "us" and there's us. :pals: MKJ

[mzmolly]

59. Yep

To US! :toast:

:hug:

:hi:

[orleans]

61. it's a double edged sword charlie is playing with here

i understand his point--that the rich kids, too, would have to fight; the politician's sons and daughters would be drafted .... yes, but even if that were the case i find it hard to believe that they would not find some way out of harms way (ie fuckhead's "service" in the champagne division of get drunk, use coke & don't show up for your physical)


also...how do you explain this to people who see the world in black & white: the democrats want to draft our kids! the dems want a draft! (folks in my mostly republican, middle class area were freaking out when this was newsworthy a couple years ago--it was giving them more reason to think dems were irresponsible & crazy)

message to charlie: don't piss off the middle class and make them turn against us.

[farmboxer]

62. Rangel's gift to Republicans before Pres race........

this is something Repubs want him to do so they can get back into power. Democrate suicide, no doubt about it. I understand what he is saying and what he meant, but Dems need to stay away from that one. We will not need a draft if Dems stay in power anyway. Why make is so easy for Repubs to win pres election?