FWIW, I think Rangel is brilliant and 100% correct

[Horse with no Name]

The only way some people will wake up to what is going on is if they have more invested in this war than the $1.99 magnet on their car.
When it is THEIR child who cannot complete their education because he has been called to service.
When it is THEIR child whose body returns in the dead of the night without cameras.
When it is THEIR child whose scars are unseen but very deep and very destructive.
When it is THEIR child who returns to a country to find that he cannot find a job and ends up sleeping on the street.
When it is THEIR child whose Veterans benefits have been cut, leaving him to scream all night because of what he has seen and what he has been forced to do.
Right now, when this country has the option of it being SOMEONE ELSE'S child, many are not invested in this war.
When it is THEIR child who has served more than 3 tours of duty in Iraq and cries like a baby not to have to go back "there", when it is THEIR child who doesn't have body armor, when it is THEIR child who they send away a whole person and who returns broken.
Only then will things change.

*IF* we had an additional 20,000 troops, our current troops wouldn't be so broken--physically and emotionally.
*IF* we are so committed to "winning the War in Iraq", it is time for SOMEONE ELSE'S child to step up and ease the load of the ones who have already been...multiple times.

[IndyOp]

1. Also note - he said IF * insists on war in Iran THEN the draft would be necessary

I think we should be considering a draft and CLOSING the loopholes that allow the rich kids from avoiding service.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I agree 100%.

My brother has been over there twice. He doesn't want to go back.

[IndyOp]

8. You are the folks I want to hear from -- people who HAVE family

who are already sacrificing.

The people who are simply outraged at the idea of a draft just don't think they should have to suffer. And I agree - they shouldn't and neither should anyone else.

[Horse with no Name]

20. I agree

I'd prefer someone else spend a few sleepless nights if they are so gung-ho for this war.
My family has had enough.

[bobbolink]

3. I agree. 100% responsibility for living in a democracy.

[TahitiNut]

17. Yep. And the 'draft' should be ALL the time - not just now.

I remember the stories a couple of my uncles would tell about the change in the military with WW2. I had one uncle who was in the military before WW2, before it had "non-professionls" in it. It was all about the forms and pretenses of an authoritarian organization - kiss up and kick down and virtually NOTHING about performance or integrity or character. The draft changed that - and the necessity to actually perform, even though we faced enemies already decimated by opponents doing the fighting before we got involved. The post-WW2 military was a far, far better organization - from all perspectives (training, integrity, values, leadership instead of bossism, etc.) - than the pre-WW2 military.

Ideally, we'd have a small active military, mostly involved in training and readiness and more involved in true international humanitarian intervention ... instead of a global corporate police force, wholly dedicated to enforcing corporate entitlements.

[bobbolink]

29. That's an important point I never heard before-have you written an LTTE about this?

Seriously, this is something that needs to be heard.

I'm glad your uncles shared that with you!

[tomp]

49. ideally?

"Ideally, we'd have a small active military, mostly involved in training and readiness and more involved in true international humanitarian intervention ... instead of a global corporate police force, wholly dedicated to enforcing corporate entitlements."

how about when we have an ideal govt, THEN we have a draft? you of all people should realize that NO govt we're going to have anytime soon could be trusted to even approach this ideal. yet you're willing to subject our youth to that risk. you're willing, in fact to ENABLE the risk.

of course, when we actually have this ideal govt, the draft will not be necessary. that's the extent of the illogic i see on this issue. i must say i'm extremely disspointed in you and the number of du'ers who are being so naive about this.

[bobbolink]

54. Back to the top with a reasoned discussion...

:thumbsup:

[spoony]

36. Really? So are you a war criminal

because your countrymen elected a whackjob?

Collective responsibility ignores the kind of righteous individualism that is helping turn this shit around.

[OneBlueSky]

4. probably true . . . but if the Democrats propose it, and it's enacted . . .

all those middle class parents whose kids will end up in the Middle East -- some never to return -- will blame the Democrats, not the Republicans . . . Democrats proposing and enacting a draft would be political suicide . . .

[kster]

9. Agreed..nt

[no_hypocrisy]

5. You forgot one: When it is THEIR child who is sent for prison for

refusing to comply with compulsory military duty like my uncle was and having it on the kid's permanent record of having committed a felony for being "unpatriotic".

[bahrbearian]

16. They won't have to fight if they get a prison record. "Unpatriotic"

I love it.

[longship]

6. Rangel's move is brilliant.

They will *have* to have hearings about this in committee. It will put the Iraq debacle right smack dab on the front page, above the fold. Yes, they will be writing about the draft, but they will also be writing about just how badly the military and our troops have been treated under ChimpCo.

So it really doesn't matter whether we get a draft or not. What matters is that when we talk about it, certain other things will come out.

Absolutely brilliant rope-a-dope move.

[wryter2000]

11. I think

I think there's a strong possibility that this could result in all the troops coming home and no one new going.

[Horse with no Name]

13. That's what I think too

We simply don't have 20,000 extra troops lying around for use.
It has to be either an all or nothing push.
A draft for new troops or bring them all home.
There really isn't any middle ground here.

[jwirr]

28. Rangel can also expose the overstretch problems of the military

and how bad the equipment situation is. Once laid out on the table the pugs will have to answer for the mess again in 08.

[wryter2000]

7. I don't want anyone drafted

But I'd be pleased as punch if all the people who supported this war got the you-know-what scared out of them at the prospect. I can't believe people who thought it was fine for other people's kids to go fight a bogus war.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. What happened? Did Charlie talk about his Draft legislation today,

or something? I must have missed it. I saw a little bit of an interview with him on C-SPAN this morning, but I didn't hear him mention the Draft.

While I would NEVER EVER let my son be Drafted (over MY DEAD BODY), I fully understand what Charlie is doing. He's calling their bluff. They WILL NEVER let THEIR kids go to Iraq. There will be no Draft, but he'll surely wake them the hell up with the thought of it.

[wryter2000]

12. Yup

He brought it up on one of the Sunday shows.

My coworker was just fine with this war. She thought we ought to "kick some ass" after 9/11. She knew her son would never go. I still don't want her son to go. I don't even want her to worry herself sick over it. But I do want the consequences of her "kick some ass" position to sink in on a personal level.

[Horse with no Name]

30. Yes.

Something needs to give here.

[lostnfound]

14. Children are not bargaining chips.

Playing Russian roulette with people's kids is a helluva way to prove a point.

Some parents -- some peace-loving, liberal-voting parents -- will lose their only son in one of Bush's wars.
As wrong as it is that any young people are dying in this war, expanding the cannon fodder pool doesn't make it any less wrong. Justice can't be achieved through scatter-shot retribution.

[Horse with no Name]

15. So it is OKAY for my brother

Who DID NOT sign up under President Bush, by the way, to be REPEATEDLY sent over there because Bush wants to steal their oil? Even though he doesn't want to go? And couldn't get out if he wanted to at this point?
He has been over there TWICE for this shit. His second tour was extended FOUR TIMES.
SOMEONE ELSE'S BROTHER needs to go this time.
It's time for American's to be FOR THE WAR OR AGAINST.
A draft is a very good way to find out EXACTLY how American's feel about this war.

[spoony]

37. How would endangering MORE people help?

This idea that the war will end when people turn against it is bunk, because they're already against it. No one with a functioning brain needs a draft to be against it. So what do you want? * having control over more people? All of us? Because he isn't stopping this thing, despite plummeting approval.

Soldiers and civilians aren't pawns, your brother or mine, and we should be working to get the people there back here, not increasing the number of people in harm's way.

[Horse with no Name]

39. I totally agree

I think they ALL should come home NOW. I don't agree with adding 20,000 more troops because there are NONE to send.
My brother is finally home, but if they need 20,000 more--he WILL be sent back.
That isn't fair.
Our family is against this bloodlust in Iraq.
I say either bring them all home or get some fresh troops to send over.
The line between use and abuse has been crossed.
Our troops have been abused. If American's are so dead set on this war, then let them send their family over to fight it because my family is tired of carrying their load so they can PRETEND to be patriotic.

[spoony]

40. Flames must be starved, not fed

A draft would be a truly dangerous expansion of the military-industrial complex already SO abused by this misadministration. While part of me understands what you're saying, I just can't go along with the idea of trying to bluff a maniac like *.

[Irreverend IX]

57. Your argument stems from emotion, not reason.

The simple truth is that Americans are not smart enough to understand that Rangel is trying to "make a point" with this legislation. When they learn about his effort, their first and last thought on the matter will be that Democrats are trying to throw their kids into the meat grinder, and they will respond by never voting Democratic ever again.

[rocktivity]

18. And IF the Rethugs call Rangel's bluff and instruct the MSM to cast the Dems

as the party who voted to send their kids to war...?

:shrug:
rocknation

[Horse with no Name]

22. That is why it is of UTMOST importance

to destroy the media conglomerates and return the media to people.

[Minnesota_Lib]

27. Straight party line vote with the sponsors and their party (D) voting against it....

I doubt the public would blame the Dems. LOL

You know, of course, that Rangel already sponsored a draft bill (HR 163) back in 2003? It was defeated 402-2. Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus (who were behind the bill) all voted nay.

Anyway, if he reintroduces it next year, the Repubs couldn't pass it on a straight party line vote. Besides, they certainly know if they did, it would mean the loss of even more seats in the next election cycle.

Charlie knows what he is doing.

[Mythsaje]

19. I find it ironic

that people who more or less idolize a man who ran to Canada to avoid the draft in the sixties are all hyped up to inflict the same kind of forced servitude on children today.

Nice.

If they tried to reinstitute the draft today, it would make the protests of the 60s look like love-ins.

Hell, this generation can't even have a 2nd "Woodstock" without trying to burn the goddamn place down.

Good luck with that.

[bananas]

25. Who are you talking about?

"a man who ran to Canada to avoid the draft in the sixties"

[Celica Toyota]

21. Only the poor will be drafted. Rangel should go back to his Moonie church

There some of the kids selling flowers may listen to his wacko ideas about the draft.

[Horse with no Name]

24. You don't think the poor are already being drafted?

I do.
Take away jobs. Take away opportunities. Take away funding for higher education.
What does that leave?
Military service or crime.
BTW--you DO know Moonies are Bush supporters, don't you? :rofl:

[spoony]

38. Yeah, "service"

"Service" like our fearless leader? C'mon, this wouldn't change anything. It would just turn every rich kid into a NCO and make everyone else cannon fodder.

[Binka]

46. Moonies Are Florists ?

Charlie is a florist with wacko ideas? Gee did you sign up to DU just to share those gems of wisdom?:silly: Good luck with that buddy.

[yellerpup]

23. The first time B*** MENTIONED war

Charlie Rangel proposed creating a draft the very first time B** mentioned it just to get people thinking about it. I, for one, remember what it was like in my country high school after graduation in 1967 when all of the boys who either couldn't get into college or couldn't afford to go got drafted into the Army Infantry and shipped out to Viet Nam. By then, the war was a quagmire and only the most, anesthetized Kool-Aid drinking conservatives would let their kids be drafted without a fight. The draft wasn't fair then and I know many lucky sons who were able to use their parent's political connections to get better assignments (Europe, Japan, etc.) Charlie was trying to stir up some protest against this craven war. Creating a draft should be unimaginable; it SHOULD be not only outrageous but also illegal. That's why we need a leader who would never dream of starting a war. We should not be having a war right now. Charlie Rangel is a put up or shut up guy, and I agree with him that if you BELIEVE in this war, then you should fight it.

[jwirr]

26. IF *ss goes to war with Iran after the CIA said that they do not

have a bomb and we need the draft - then I want *ss at the head of the troops like the kings of old. In the thick of things *ss II, coward-heart, modern crusader.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

31. Bad, bad, bad.

First, I think the concept of re-instituting the draft should stand or fall on its own merits. Just because it might be a handy tool to punish or trick the other side into capitulation (which might not work, anyway) doesn't make it right.

Second, the country has changed since the draft was ended. To re-institute the draft today, I think women would have to be drafted in equal numbers for it to pass the constitutional challenges, and utilizing those women would be impossible with current rules for assignment to combat. Legislators across the political spectrum greatly fear drafting women. I don't see how this could possibly succeed politically or practically.

Third, the idea of citizens' lives being bought and sold for political points is disgusting. Everybody of a draft-able age should be offended.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. Spoken like someone beyond draft age

I would never vote for a Democrat again if they tried to draft me. I would never vote again. I would leave the country and never come back again. Barred from doing that, I would hole up with a rifle and kill as many cops as I could before getting killed myself. If they want me in Iraq--they can have my dead body.

[Horse with no Name]

33. You are funny

Because see...I am already ELIGIBLE for a medical draft. They can call me up any time. That is already enacted.
I also have two kids that would be of prime draft age AND I have a brother serving now.
This issue is way past Democratic or Republican boundaries and lies square in the middle of being an American issue.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. America can fuck itself

I'm not fighting this war, period. They can have my dead body, I'm sure, but they can't make me fight.

[malaise]

35. Agree 100%

particularly with your last sentence.
*IF* we are so committed to "winning the War in Iraq", it is time for SOMEONE ELSE'S child to step up and ease the load of the ones who have already been...multiple times.

[Tatiana]

41. Rangel *is* brilliant and many people are missing the important caveat.

IF we persist in this invasion ("war"), THEN (and only then) will the draft be necessary.

If Rangel does indeed draft this bill and it comes to the floor of the House, he will be able to do some very important things:

1) Highlight the true condition of the state of our military and the need for more troops at home. Remember Katrina? Remember when everyone was asking where in the hell was our National Guard?

2) Emphasize the negative (and sometimes fatal) effect redeployment has on families, current soldiers, and our nation in general.

3) Educate the public on the true number of troops necessary to engage in neocon invasions ("wars") and drill that information in the back of everyone's mind so the next time some idiot President gets it in his/her head that he/she wants to invade another sovereign nation, the public will be a bit more skeptical.

4) Remind America that it owes its protection to mostly lower-income, urban and rural citizens who signed up in hopes of achieving a better life for themselves and their families.

5) Force those in support of this invasion to put their money where their mouth is. It's hard to be gung-ho for a war when your own kid/brother/nephew/uncle has to go fight it.

6) Explore the true on-the-ground status of conditions in Iraq.

And for those who are suggesting Democrats will be seen as the villains in this - we won't, as long as we clearly and succinctly make the case to the American public. We aren't trying to take young men away from their families. We are trying to protect the young men and women who have served admirably in the wake of being understaffed, underfunded, and underprotected. We are giving them the tools and the personnel necessary to do their jobs, which the current pResident (along with Rumsfeld) never bothered to do.

[moondust]

42. I like what he's doing.

It's a morality play.

[democrank]

43. Rangel knows draft legislation will not pass

but the debate would certainly bring to the forefront the disconnect between rah-rahing for the war while being unwilling to fight in it. Bush keeps reminding us the military is "all volunteer" without also noting that many of our soldiers have been sent to Iraq for the third, fourth or fifth time. Did they volunteer for that?

I am against the war and a draft but it seems obscene to me Bush has never mentioned a shared sacrifice. Just charge billions to our grandchildren, go shopping and let someone else spread what he calls "freedpm."

[EdwardM]

44. Good, you support Rangel's draft, you go to Iraq

As a 20 year old antiwar male, I am against Charles Rangel's draft and would never vote for him. Your post is incorrect. It is not just "their" children who will be called up. It will also be children like me who don't support the war. Also, "their" children might be against the war also. A child can have completely different viewpoints than his or her parents.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I think you've misunderstood Rangel.

Your post appears to consist of genuine argument in favour of a draft.

Rangel, as far as I can tell, *isn't* in favour of a draft; he's proposing one as a political move to illustrate conservative hypocricy.

If you want to say "I agree with Rangel", what you need to be saying is not "a draft would help, for these reasons", but "the conservatives are hypocrites for supporting the war but not supporting a draft, for these reasons; I don't support a draft either but because I don't support the war I'm not a hypocrite".

Your post appears to be groping towards that point, but it certainly doesn't make explicit that you *don't* want a draft, which Rangel almost certainly doesn't.

[Horse with no Name]

51. My post isn't in favor of a draft

My post is in favor of shared sacrifice.
*IF* these warmongers want more war...it's time to send someone else's kids.
The ones we have are used up.
I prefer to bring them all home.

[fooj]

56. That's what this is ALL ABOUT. Shared sacrifice.

:patriot:

[MGD]

47. It is more consistent with the founding father's original intention for the defense of America

The existence of a large standing Army garrisoned within our own border is not consistent with their intentions.

[fladonkey]

48. Rangel's strategy...

is brillant.

[REP]

50. You Must Not Have Draft-Age Children

If you did, you would YOUR child going, not theirs. They can buy their way out of it - can you? But since it doesn't apply to you, other peoples' children are pawns to you - just like they are to Bush. No thank you. I don't think even rich Bush supporters should have to pay for his mistake with their childrens' lives.

On edit: in case it's in question, I am child-free, and there is no one of draft-age in my family. Still oppose it.

[Horse with no Name]

52. I have 2 children that are in college and prime draft age

AND I am draft age for a specialty draft.
I have a horse in this race.
BUT I also have a brother in active duty. We CANNOT in good conscience keep sending the same people back...over and over until they are either killed or so broken spiritually that they might as well be dead.
IF we can't bring these soldiers home, there has to be another conversation about what we are going to do to keep feeding the war machine.

[fladonkey]

55. Excuse me....

but before you start pointing fingers I suggest you listen to what Rep. Rangel's viewpoint is. The reason that he believes the Bush administration is so determined to go on fighting in Iraq is because it doesn't effect them. During WWII, all of President Roosevelt's adult children were in uniform. Why aren't Jenna and Laura?

PS - I (and my family) don't have to apologize for anything. Both my parents are veterans, my brother is a veteran, I was in NROTC and then was injured and could not serve. Both my mother's brothers served in WWII (one of them was drafted and won the Navy Cross).

[ecstatic]

53. Unfortunately, even with a draft, their children would be safe

That's the part that Rangle missed. There was a draft during Vietnam--and just like during Vietnam, only certain people will be forced to go to war while the rich, powerful, and famous have the option of getting out of it if they so choose.

I admire Rangle's initiative, but he and other Dems have got to realize that anytime you suggest something that requires explaining *over and over again,* that is dangerous for our party because the RW media is in control.