Should the military draft be brought back?

[undeterred]

This week Charlie Rangel (D-NY) sent the following letter to members of the House:

If there were a Universal National Service Act, there would be no shortage of troops to fill the ranks without repeatedly deploying the same exhausted troops over and over.

I urge you to support my legislation for the Universal National Service Act as a co-sponsor.

• Requires all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 if called upon by the President during a declaration of war, a national emergency or a military contingency operation to perform national service for a minimum of two years with few exceptions.

• Cuts down the number of deployments for active duty and reserve military units who now see multiple deployments during the course of their enlistment due to troop strength shortages.

• Provides a National service to work education, health care, ports, security and other services as deemed necessary by the President.

• Benefits us ALL as Americans by helping ensure the United States is ready to protect and respond to our nation’s needs at home and abroad at times of peace, national emergency or war if necessary.

The question of whether we need a Universal National Service Act will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of its young men and women in harm’s way. We make decisions about war without worry over who fights them. Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/7855-charlie-rangel-sponsors-bill-to-bring-back-the-draft

[provis99]

1. let's do it Roman style. Draft only the rich.

They're the ones with the greatest stake in the county. the property owners should be the ones that have to serve on the front lines with a rifle.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. and make the poor slaves?

That was what the Romans did.

[WatsonT]

26. They also drafted the poor

and viewed women as objects.

[lonestarnot]

78. Well that part has already been done, so no action required there.

[lonestarnot]

77. I maybe wouldn't mind that.

:)

[Xenotime]

167. They should be forced to surrender their assets while they serve too.

[GodlessBiker]

2. It should be 18-40, if it is anything at all.

[jacquelope]

73. It should be draft supporters ONLY, if anything at all. n/t

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Yes. And, a book of matches should be issued with every draft card to burn it with.

I fought the draft in the '60s, but I think it's a good idea now to keep the generals looking over their shoulders and the politicians a lot more wary of waving the flag and sending the cannon-fodder off to to kill and die.

[RKP5637]

10. It would definitely IMO keep more of the country in focus on what is going on if

they thought they had some skin to lose in the game. Now, as opposed to the '60s, for many it's out of sight, out of mind. I had that discussion with a republican awhile back, and they just could not see why "they" had to take part in any war or aggression, because the "others" were doing it for them. So they were all in favor of wars and go get the Muslims.

[leftstreet]

15. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT

Maybe the politicians need to focus on "what's going on."

People are unemployed, underemployed, out of UI benefits

People are losing their homes

People can't afford to seek medical care

That's what's GOING ON

:eyes:

[undeterred]

23. The government is spending 2BILLION DOLLARS a week in Afghanistan!

We can afford war but we can't afford to help people in crisis at home- because our priorities are totally screwed.

[RKP5637]

56. That "is" the bottom line, no one gives a shit about anything in America anymore. n/t

[Aerows]

119. And somehow...

...what is going on in Libya is worth spending boatloads of money on.

[jacquelope]

80. +100,000,000 !!!

.

[reggie the dog]

87. use the match to light a joint and you would be undraftable

due to dirty pee.

[Raksha]

108. I was opposed to the draft in the '60s also, and I can't believe I just voted for it.

But I did, and for the exact same reason you did. I'm sick and tired of seeing all these poor boys dying in rich men's wars.

[glen123098]

110. You have a draft and more poor boys die in even more rich man's wars.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. HELL NO! My son turned 18 4 days ago. No military can have him. Sorry. n/t

[jacquelope]

71. I just ADOPTED a baby boy last month NO WAY IN HELL!!!!

No way in hell letting ANY military take him by force!!!

[leftstreet]

5. Wait...you're saying a Democrat came up with this shit?

:shrug:

That can't be. A Democrat would only propose a National Service Act that DIDN'T include turning young people into cannon fodder.

[undeterred]

7. The only way to stop these wars is to get people out to protest.

The only way to get people out to protest is to have some skin in the game. Start a draft on Tuesday, and by next week the whole country will look like Madison. We'll be out of Afghanistan in months instead of years.

[leftstreet]

11. LOLLOL - yeah we never thought of that n/t

[RKP5637]

12. Exactly!!! n/t

[pnwmom]

45. Yeah, that really worked in Vietnam. 50,000 American deaths there,

most of them during the years of protests.

The protests didn't end the war. Watergate did.

[RKP5637]

55. Do you feel the current wars are out of sight, out of mind for most Americans? n/t

[pnwmom]

120. I don't think draft-related protests would make any difference.

It would harden many centrists against the protesters, not against the wars. The media would probably downplay protests, just as they do now; and they wouldn't stop any future government that wanted to start a war.

Do you honestly think if we had a draft the war in Iraq would have been over more quickly? That is impossible for me to believe, based on what happened in Vietnam.

[RKP5637]

126. I agree with your posts. If we protest the protesters become blamed just like in

the 60's. If you wanted peace in the 60's you were the enemy. Sadly, much is the same. I've been thinking about some of your posts ... The draft would have given Bush more bodies to throw into Iraq. I do think the nightly broadcasts of the actual Vietnam war were helpful in getting people more connected to what was going on ... it made it very personal, and then we had Walter Cronkite, for example, coming out against it ... and the MSM was less RW and contrived/conglomerated, at least they showed the events. And Nixon calling us all bums. The creep.

[pnwmom]

140. Those nightly broadcasts did help. But Bush also put a lid on that

by limiting reporting out of Iraq. Remember how they banned photographers from taking pictures of bodies coming home in coffins? And barely a peep out of the media.

As bad as it was, it's scary to think what Iraq/Afghanistan could have turned into if they'd had an unlimited supply of conscripts to throw into the war -- especially with the barely functioning media we have now.

[RKP5637]

141. Yep, out of sight, out of mind, no pictures of the coffins. US talks about other

countries, but we certainly have our form of suppression here.

[RKP5637]

57. Frankly with or without the draft we are screwed, as with most things, because

people vote these absolute fools into office. Many can't seem to differentiate fact from propaganda and fall for all of their rhetoric when these politicians run for office. Many people vote with their emotions and not their brains.

My concern is with all of the slick hype marketing propaganda we have today and the controlled, contrived monopolistic MSM today there is no end in sight, especially this combined with Citizens United.

The money has to come out of these elections, but I have no idea how that's going to happen.

[Forkboy]

14. How long did protests go on during Vietnam before that war ended?

[pnwmom]

43. For years, through 50,000 deaths. And it was Watergate that

broke Nixon, and finally got him to the negotiating table -- not all those protests.

[reggie the dog]

86. 58,000 deaths

[kiva]

94. No, it was not. - perhaps you are thinking of the Pentagon Papers.

Nixon's agreement to the Peace Accords was well before there was any public knowledge of his role in Watergate.

[pnwmom]

121. The first reports related to Watergate came out months before

the knowledge became widespread. Nixon had plenty of time to see the writing on the wall.

[kiva]

138. Everything he said and did shows that he had no

clue that the burglary would come back to him - the Cambodian bombing had failed to bring the North Vietnamese to their knees, as had Operation Linebacker. Nixon was under pressure to withdraw the troops, part of his 1968 campaign promise; Vietnamization had gotten some of the protesters off his back, but he really had no choice to to accept the peace terms and try to put a good face on it: "to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and S.E. Asia."

[lob1]

28. I protested against the draft in the 60's, but we

managed to stop that war because we all had someone there, or knew someone there. It's harder to argue to get your son or daughter out of Afghanistan when they volunteered.

[pnwmom]

46. The protests didn't end the war. Nixon only negotiated

after Watergate, when his Presidency was in tatters. Tens of thousands of Americans died while we protested, but it was Watergate that broke Nixon's Presidency.

[bettyellen]

147. it wasn't after Watergate, why do you keep repeating this misinformation?

[pnwmom]

41. Wrong. We had years of protests in Vietnam, and 50,000 soldiers

died before it ended. The protests didn't end the war -- Watergate did. With the back of his Presidency broken, Nixon finally decided to negotiate.

All the draft did was provide cheap, easy cannon fodder. That's why many of us fought to end it -- so that no future President could so easily fight a war without popular support.

[Poll_Blind]

51. +1

PB

[dorkulon]

72. That's a big gamble. Didn't work for Vietnam.

At least the Americans dying overseas today chose their lot and weren't pressed into service.

[RC]

9. He is most likely is a DINO with no kids.

[undeterred]

13. No, he's a black man who sees how the poor and minorities are

affected disproportionately by the wars this country chooses to fight. Its easier to vote for more war if its somebody elses son or daughter who is going to come home disfigured or dead instead of your own. No college deferrments this time. Think Obama would like his daughters to go to Afghanistan when they're old enough?

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. He is a black man who was drafted for Korea

and who's recognized the very real economic draft before anybody else in officialdom did.

[KamaAina]

165. Rangel's been on this hobby horse for years

he thinks that if rich and middle-class kids could get drafted, their parents might think twice about their unquestioning support for war with Eastasia or whoever.

He does have a point, but bringing back the draft is a truly frightening way to make it.

[HappyMe]

6. Whaaat??

Oh hell NO!

[Initech]

8. No, what we should do is cap oil company profits, and start taxing the fuck out of them.

That will end these wars faster than you can blink.

[2gabby]

16. i just can't agree

I don't think our elected representatives represent the people, and are terrible about representing military people. They love the military, but only the establishment part. So I wouldn't force anyone to serve in our military. I don't believe it would force them to treat the troops better or use them more fairly. And, I was active duty.

[undeterred]

18. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[2gabby]

67. oh, gee thank you :)

Its nice to participate :)

[tpsbmam]

102. Welcome to DU, 2gabby! (Love the name.) I actually would be for the draft BUT

the lawmakers who would enact such a law would make damn sure their kids could be exempt. If and only if there was a draft that, as CR has indicated, had very few exemptions and NO exemptions for rich kids (e.g., no college deferment)vs. poor, THEN I'd get behind the draft. THEN it really would act as a deterrent. I'm guessing that if Congresspersons' kids could have been drafted, we might have gone into Afghanistan but we would not have attacked Iraq.

Since the powers that be will never vote to make their kids eligible for the draft, it's sort of a moot point.

:hi:

[2gabby]

109. wish i could agree with u :)

Thanks! I am gabby. Gosh, I've though about the draft thing, and, its just not a horror I would force on anyone, you know? Even if everyone went. Whether a draft that is "fair" might end the wars, I don't know. Except for how little public condemnation has mattered up to this point, I just don't know how long it might take. But Vietnam did take years, and most died the last years. So just on that, I wouldn't even want to try it. The human costs are so huge and I guess I don't think its my right to force someone into harms way. Certainly not into an unjust war, basically, politics, since political will is the real problem.

But I see your point, I think, that a draft just wouldn't be fair anyway, and we know it.

[Aerows]

17. Yes

That would end the wars quickly.

[Supply Side Jesus]

19. +1

[AndyTiedye]

34. It Would Cause More Wars

Think what Boosh would have done with an unlimited source of cannon fodder!
We'd have invaded Iran already. We'd probably have troops all over the Middle East.

The Vietnam war went on for years, despite the draft and our protests.

[ZombieHorde]

36. How would they end? nt

[Aerows]

48. With protests and open revolt in the street n/t

That's what it's going to take, anyway, drafts would just speed it along.

[ZombieHorde]

70. I know I can't predict the future, but I don't think the US government would

stop a war because of protests. I am not sure what you mean by open revolt in the streets, but I would be surprised if the US government stopped a war because of people burning their draft cards.

[Agony]

20. Do you want the US to have a standing army or don't you?

If we have a standing army I see no reason we should not ALL be asked to be _prepared_ to serve in it.

[Better Believe It]

22. I'd rather have it sitting down and not leaving our shores.

[Agony]

25. +1 or [phone] or whatever means that I agree with you nt

[2gabby]

27. okay, i have to

But I wasn't going to engage much, being recent.

I have to say, we do already have a standing military. As for the fairness of who serves, it certainty wasn't fair during Vietnam, so I have absolutely NO faith that it would be any more fair today. In fact, things seem a lot more crooked and prone to favoritism of the elite. It could be a lot worse, maybe.

[HappyMe]

29. The problem is, ALL won't end up serving.

Rich, privileged kids will have mommy & daddy buy their way out.

[RC]

33. Not as long as we insist on being the worlds policeman and interfering where

we are not wanted and do not belong. Our military should be for the defense of this country, not for the enrichment of multinational corporations at our expense.

[verges]

37. I think we should let them have some chairs.

[pnwmom]

39. You can have a standing army made of of volunteers, as it is now.

The reason the draft was abolished, after the debacle in Vietnam, was to prevent future Presidents from waging wars without the support of the American people. As bad as Iraq was, what would Bush have done with an unlimited number of draftees to send there? 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam, the vast majority after the draft began.

[lame54]

166. you first

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Other.. mandatory military service for all

I would suggest a 2 year minimum enlistment after high school graduation. I would also enlist high school drop outs early and add that time to their 2 year minimum (lets see what that does to graduation rates). It would also help us break drug addictions that many teenagers fall into. I am not saying this is going to solve the drug problem in this country but removing teens from the environment that led to their addiction should help them kick the habit.


Get EVERYONE on the G.I. bill to help make higher education and health care more affordable. Also everyone needs to know how to handle a firearm safely. It looks like we are never going to be able to get reasonable gun control laws so in the short term the best we can do is to cut down on the accidental injuries and deaths.


The draft isn't fair. Cheney and his endless deferments along with W. and his National Guard service should be proof of that. The poor will still suffer more than the rich under a draft.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Make sure the rich have some skin in the game.

Also, a draftee army tends to get very unhappy when they're used for purposes that don't make sense to them.

[LAGC]

31. Only if all the Congresspeople' kids are the first to be drafted. (n/t)

[ZombieHorde]

32. No, I strongly disapprove of a draft.

I don't think people should be forced to use firearms against other human beings.

I don't think people should be forced into situations where they will be shot at.

I don't think people should be forced to be subjected to military law.

I don't think people should be forced to abandon their educational, professional, and romantic desires.

I don't think politicians, especially Republicans, care about protests.

I am uncertain as to how much power corporations have over the US government's decision to go war.

I don't trust the US government to run a fair draft.

I don't trust the US government to tell us the truth about our "enemies."

[kiva]

35. Has anyone else noticed the gender-neutral language in this letter?

I ask my classes, when we discuss the Vietnam draft, if the draft returns should women be drafted? The discussions are always interesting, and I suspect Rangel knows that the threat of drafting women would add to the pressure to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and be more careful of who we engage in war.

[pnwmom]

47. It would only make it EASIER to send men and women to

Afghanistan and Iraq, just as the draft made it easier to send soldiers to Vietnam.

The whole reason that millions of us fought to end the draft after Vietnam was to make it harder for Presidents to ever wage an unpopular war again. If you can't fill an army with volunteers, then the war isn't worth fighting.

[kiva]

49. Your second paragraph says it all.

As long as only volunteers fight the wars, the vast majority of Americans will not give a damn. They will continue with their daily lives, unaffected by the war(s). During Vietnam we all had brothers and friends who could be, or were, sent to fight, and we were much more engaged - as you said, millions protested the war and the draft. Today? No so much.

[undeterred]

53. The ability of the military to staff an army with volunteers

at this moment has little to do with whether that war is worth fighting. It has more to do with how badly our economy is doing and how few options young people at the bottom of our economic strata have for getting started in life. It costs nothing to volunteer for the army. There is the promise of training and education wrapped in the language of service and patriotism. And it beats working at Walmart.

[kiva]

50. Your second paragraph says it all.

As long as only volunteers fight the wars, the vast majority of Americans will not give a damn. They will continue with their daily lives, unaffected by the war(s). During Vietnam we all had brothers and friends who could be, or were, sent to fight, and we were much more engaged - as you said, millions protested the war and the draft. Today? No so much.

[2gabby]

54. yes

And the institutional violence against women is something I wouldn't force on anyone. Who will give up their daughter that war they WON'T win? It's a stacked deck even if u want to be there, for too many unsuspecting female troops. You really don't expect that level of violence from your own until you see it. Absolute cannon fodder.

Would it generate enough horror stories to stop wars? Well after the horror stories I'm already familiar with, I'd be surprised. Seems like anything goes. KBR employees locked in shipping crates and stuff, if you heard about that court case. And young poor people don't have a lot of political clout to change things. Another generation could suffer if we take the "everybody serve" approach. They could suffer badly, and our young people are having a tough time already.

I don't know. It's not their fault, you know? Young people didn't screw this all up. Expecting the outrage of more wealthy parents to stop the wars, I'm just sure they'll just slither out of it. That's what is expect, and who will stop that? Republicans? *cough cough* Democrats? And I'm not sure the American people have any outrage left. They allow torture, what else is there? What I am sure of, the only thing, is that no sensible person should be a part of the military industrial complex that kills innocents and steals taxpayer money, while mistreating military members. No one should join. Active duty should stand down, quit and go home. Imho.

[timtom]

144. Your thinking reminds me of someone...

Let me see...Oh, I know! You remind me of ME! Only you said better.
Thank you very much.
And, welcome to DU, 2gabby.

[2gabby]

149. that gave me a chuckle, this grim am

You're too kind, so typical of the nice folks to be found here on DU.

It's nice to be agreed with. The idea of a draft makes me so sad.

[pnwmom]

38. People who support this haven't learned from history.

The Vietnam war was allowed to expand to the extent that it did precisely because there was no "shortage of troops" once the draft began. Fifty thousand Americans died in that war, most of them draftees (or "enlistees" who enlisted only to avoid the draft.)

Many of us fought for an end to the draft so that it would never be that easy again for a President to wage a war without popular support. It is sickening to see progressives today advocate for a draft with so little understanding of the consequences.

[undeterred]

42. Nobody knows for sure what the consequences would be

and what might be done differently this time. I think its a good thing for progressives to discuss, especially in light of the fact that so many of those fighting our wars come from backgrounds where they don't have a lot of choices in life. There are questions of fairness involved.

[MH1]

40. Other. Universal national service

which some people confuse with 'the draft'.

[AndyTiedye]

44. NO! More Cannon Fodder = More Wars!

The corporations already got your money, now you want to give them your kids?!???

What do you think they would do with an unlimited source of cannon fodder?

Yeah, we'll protest. We might get coverage on Al Jazeera.

Provides a National service to work education, health care, ports, security and other services as deemed necessary by the President.

First we take away their unions, now we're gonna replace them with conscript labor?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Modern_Matthew]

58. Anyone that voted YES is a vile human being and shouldn't be allowed to breathe my air. nt

[undeterred]

59. Well. That's constructive.

Hanging someone for voting in a poll.

[Modern_Matthew]

62. Yeah, well. It's not very constructive forcing people into war, either.

But I changed my reply a bit.

[jacquelope]

85. Anyone who voted YES should be drafted first! n/t

.

[timtom]

60. Yes and so should indentured servitude and slavery.

Why not? The Great American Experiment is at its bitter end now. Let's all join or be drafted into the military and kill 'em all.

(All right! I don't really feel that way. I'm being bizarrely sarcastic.)

[Marr]

61. How else are we supposed to protect the investments of the wealthiest 1%?

And please, won't someone think of their children? The poor dears have trust funds and spring break parties to think about.

[undeterred]

63. War exploits men.

War disproportionately exploits poor and minority men. The answer is to stop war or to have only just wars. We don't seem to be able to do that. Spreading the risk of losing life and limb in war over the whole population would make the people in power of choosing war much more careful about doing so... or is there some better way?

Or do we not care what neverending war is doing to us, economically and otherwise?

[Youth Uprising]

64. Is this poll being rigged by freepers?

Or are people in this forum really this horrid? Those libertardians whose article you linked to make more sense than you do.

[undeterred]

68. I only linked to provide a quote from Rangel's letter

which is the same there as anywhere else. I don't consider people who disagree with me to be horrid and I'm sorry that you do. I am a pacifist = I am against war. Kucinich's approach is a direct way of trying to end the current wars and this is another way. I'm sorry you don't understand.

[kiva]

69. No, I voted yes for the same reason Rangle proposed this -

to force Americans to really think about the wars we are in, and other future conflicts - as long as we have that handy-dandy volunteer army, the majority of Americans can ignore those wars.

[undeterred]

74. Exactly!

And because Rangel is African American and sees a lot of young black men volunteering and going off to war because they have fewer choices in life, he is seeking a kind of justice. If America is going to engage in these wars, all Americans in all communities should share the sacrifice. Its only fair. And if the rest of America decides those wars aren't worth it to them, they shouldn't be asking anyone else to fight those wars either.

[Auggie]

83. How about a special war tax? That'll get their attention.

I'm against a draft. A better way to enroll Americans is to make them pay extra to go to war. Start and end with the wealthy.

[OmahaBlueDog]

143. A war tax should have been passed on day 1

Unless you've lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, very few feel any sense of sacrifice and are disconnected from these conflicts. A war tax reminds people, in a small way, that there is a cost associated with war. It makes them feel like they are playing a part, and also gives an incentive to want the conflict wrapped up quickly.

[jacquelope]

142. It's gotta be the freepers.

Liberals supporting the DRAFT? It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

[hack89]

145. Many think a draft will reduce the number of wars

you can question their logic but their hearts are in the right place.

[elocs]

65. Who here with children are willing to have them risk their lives by being involuntarily drafted?

Anyone who believes that a draft would end wars should be more than willing to offer their own children up for a draft to back up that belief.

Ahh, I get it. Not so eager when it might be your children who could be killed on the chance that a draft would end wars. Such a notion is great in the theoretical sense, but different when it is up close and personal.

[Urban Prairie]

66. A draft would NEVER be fairly implemented

If most would be called to serve, everyone male and female, should have to do so for a minimum of two years, no college deferments, no "National Guard" and no other excuses, with the obvious exceptions of those of whom are proven to be mentally/physically unfit, or who are imprisoned, unless they become released/freed during their ages of eligibility.

[2gabby]

75. maybe our military ought to focus on real threats

After a while, I wonder if we DO need a standing army, or if we actually need a large active duty force. I mean really, we aren't in any wars we didn't start. We could walk away from all of them with no real threat to ourselves. We should close all the overseas bases that governments love but locals (real people who live there) almost always hate. I don't think a economic benefit is worth military bases, do you? Heck, I guess I feel like we wouldn't need a draft at all, if we could shrink our military to what it should be. But it all depends on political will, all of it.

[Maru Kitteh]

76. I'm tired of this country offering so many young people almost no other opportunities and then

calling them "volunteers" when they take the only way ahead left to them that doesn't involve criminal enterprise or abject poverty.

When you have no other options, that's not a choice, that's not a volunteer.

[RegieRocker]

79. What and let them be able to kill you for their greedy wars?

You can't be serious.

[reggie the dog]

81. Very easy to avoid, smoke weed, fail the drug test, and stay out

of the military. that is what i would tell all my high school students to do at any rate.

[reggie the dog]

82. why should my daughter or my nephew be turned into killers

and come home with ptsd? why should all men be made to have short hair? oh wait, my kid will just fail the drug test for marijuana and never be accepted as a soldier so she has nothing to worry about.

[mikehiggins]

84. Nixon wanted a volunteer army. Tell you anything?

Not that it is actually the "volunteers" in whatever-is-stan. Lots are National Guard units, who are guys (and women) just like us who signed up for one reason or another and got screwed totally. That is why I have little hope a "draft" will generate sufficient resistance to put an end to these lunatic exercises in empire. These are the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters of middle america and there is still support among the rest for whatever 'mericka says is necessary.

Hopefully, whatever kind of society evolves among the survivors of climate change will not have the ego-driven need to prove our manliness, but I'm inclined to doubt it.

I fear for my grandkids.

[undeterred]

90. The people who volunteer now are doing so because

of a weak economy more than anything else. They have no good options. It sickens me that the National Guard has been misused since Bush nationalized them and that this continues. But I really think a draft would make this everyone's issue - and everyone needs to start paying attention to how this state of perpetual war is bankrupting our country, in more ways than one.

[shanti]

88. oh my god...

five years ago this poll would have been totally different here on DU.

[cemaphonic]

113. You'd be surprised

Rangel has been tilting at this particular windmill for some time now, and seems to resubmit some version of this bill on a pretty regular schedule, so the discussion has come up many times before. There has always been a sizable and vocal pro-draft contingent here, perverse as it might seem.

[customerserviceguy]

89. I'm surprised to see all the yes votes here

For those who voted that way, would you include women as well as men? If not, why not?

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Yes I would include women

my ONLY exception would be a six month delay if you are that short from college graduation... at the end of that you go in as an officer for a regular tour.

[customerserviceguy]

95. A bill to draft would have to include women

which is why it would never pass through Congress, they don't want their debutante daughters having to face a draft. Without including women, it might just fail on Constitutional grounds, even without an Equal Rights Amendment.

I don't know tons of stuff about the military, but it seems to me it would take longer than six months of school to train someone to be an officer in any branch of the military.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. After they finish their college they go into officer candidate school

if they go into ROTC they get their commission at the end of their college, and are commissioned at graduation.

During WW II we had six week wonders... one of them was one Lt. Winters... of Band of Brothers fame.

And yes if we have a draft, it includes women.

[customerserviceguy]

111. So, these look like the choices for someone with over six months

of college left under your proposal:

1) Drop out of college, and join the military (or some other indentured servitude) for two years as cannon fodder.

2) Stay in college, go to ROTC, and hope that after you graduate, the military lets you go after two years, and investing a bunch of money in your training.

Of course, if I've misunderstood you, and you really want the college student to serve for four or more years for the military to recoup its investment, then we're really talking about playing with peoples' lives for some sort of misguided strategy.

During WWII, we needed six week wonders. I guess I just don't see any wars we're either in now, preparing to fight, or have recently been in as having the importance of defeating Nazi Germany and/or Imperial Japan.

[undeterred]

92. The language of Rangels bill and letter is inclusive.

[customerserviceguy]

96. Yes, I can see that

which for reasons stated above make it an empty excercise, I was just asking what people here think about it. I'm still rather shocked to see that so many would favor a draft at all, I'm sort of curious to know what other anachronistic ideas they might harbor.

[undeterred]

98. People voting for the draft here are against war.

This is a strategy.

[customerserviceguy]

105. So is putting in tax cuts for the rich

to trick middle class people that they might need those cuts some day. But it's not the kind of strategy our party likes to do. Usually.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. I will use my nieces as examples

they are ALL for the Iraq war... so I told them when are you joining and would that change your opinion?

IF they had to fight, or join they'd be against it.

THe same goes for their father.

When we raised the issue of which of her girls he was willing to sacrifice.

It will focus people's attention, believe it or not.

[customerserviceguy]

107. With an inclusion of women into any draft bill

it will absolutely never pass. Equality, especially when it comes to this, doesn't fly in this country. Your anecdote supports my point on that.

It just makes Rangel look stupid to propose an idea that is
1) Not going anywhere.
2) Enrages a lot of our base.
3) Makes us look as craven as the Republicons for playing games with people's lives.

[Renew Deal]

157. DU has always voted this way for the draft

Because many think that will end most wars.

[fittosurvive]

93. Should the institution of slavery be brought back?

[customerserviceguy]

97. Good comparison n/t

[undeterred]

100. No, its not.

Bringing back the draft is a strategy. First of all it is a way to correct an injustice- that the burden of fighting a nation's wars falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities. Secondly, it is a way of making sure that those who decide whether we go to war have some "skin in the game" - people who decide on wars will be more hesitant to do so if their children are involved. So bringing back the draft is potentially a strategy to end wars.

And as the bill states, there are other kinds of service people could be required to do.

[2gabby]

103. but

The people most affected by a draft will be the people who didn't want to join the military. And the people most opposed to the military, maybe like a lot of people on here, will be the most unfairly forced to join. Forced to support a killing machine.

I guess what I'm saying is that you BETTER keep in mind that the people who oppose war, many young liberal progressives, would be the most hurt by a draft. You would hurt good nonviolent young people the most. Period. And, hurting them as policy might not be good. Won't make them love their country, trust their government, or improve their health. They wouldn't be the same, and it would be your fault, not theirs. It's not shared responsibility, its shared tragedy.

[undeterred]

116. How is drafting everyone more unfair to some than to others?

Do you really think ANYONE WANTS to join the military? On what basis do you argue that young liberal progressives are a special privileged class who hurt and bleed and psychologically ache more deeply than other people? Self-interest?

Young people with no chance to get an education and little chance to form an informed political opinion are cannon fodder right now. How just and fair is that?

Although white Americans are conditioned to think our lives have more value than everybody elses, its a lie. Everyones' life has value. Therefore, we all should share in the sacrifices demanded by our country. Drafting everyone makes us all equals.

[customerserviceguy]

128. Sounds like the argument the Rethuglicans use

when they favor wiping out the earned income credit, "everybody has to have some skin in the game". They figure that if low-income people pay at least some income taxes, they'll vote against government spending.

How is your argument in this situation much different from theirs?

[undeterred]

129. I have no idea how that has anything to do with this.

[customerserviceguy]

137. It's the idea of

'if we're all in this together, things will change'.

For Repigs, they think that if minimum wage people don't have an earned income credit, they'll oppose government spending.

For people like yourself who think that if everybody is subject to the draft, we'll all be against wars of choice.

It's the same logic, really.

[2gabby]

139. yes, i think some people want to join, its volunteer now

Isn't it?

As far as some people being worth more than others, if you really want to imply I mean such nonsense, it almost makes me want to agree out of spite that yes, yes maybe I do value the lives of the perhaps less violent young people a tiny bit more than some, in this ridiculously violent world. But face to face, I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way. It isn't about better. It's about not forcing people to kill that don't want to kill. It's bad enough for the many hundreds of thousands that don't know better, or don't care.

[customerserviceguy]

104. If this ever happens

and it won't, it will be so larded up with exceptions that the rich will always be able to buy their way out of it. The last time we had a draft, it was called the 'student deferrment'. Your rich daddy could always bankroll your tuition in some diploma-mill college, you didn't even have to study or anything like that just to stay enrolled.

Playing strategy with innocent people's lives is something the Republicons like to do, at least that's what I thought...

[wickerwoman]

115. "Playing strategy with innocent people's lives is something the Republicons like to do"

+1000

[customerserviceguy]

132. Thank you

If we get down into their gutter, why should the voters pick us in elections?

[undeterred]

118. There should be no college deferrments

and no other way of buying or 'knowing somebody' your way out of it.

[customerserviceguy]

127. Ah, but there always will be

The war-hawk Republicons whose cooperation would be needed to write this bill will absolutely ensure that young Todd and Muffy won't have to crawl around in a foxhole in some desert if they can help it.

Without Repukes, how do you expect to get this bill passed? And if we defeat them back to a tiny minority party, we won't need a draft or anything like that, because we'll have a Congress that will refuse to support wars of choice.

[leftstreet]

124. YES! People would then rise up and demand an end to low wages !!111

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


just in case:

:sarcasm:

[Akoto]

106. Once again, no, Rangel. Young people are not political bargaining chips. n/t

[krabigirl]

112. Hell no. My kids won't be fighting in these wars of imperialism. End the effing wars.

[wickerwoman]

114. No. The state does not have the right to compel people to serve it.

[Bardley]

117. there should be a public referendum on all wars

and those voting 'yes' would be eligable for the draft, and be specially taxed to pay for it

let those who believe in being the world policeman be first to walk the beat, and buy the supplies

[Marengo]

153. Don't like the secret ballot concept, eh?

How progressive of you

:eyes:

[demwing]

122. Yes, but open regsitration only to

white men over 40 years of age, and younger than 60.

That should create maximum entertainment value.

[BOHICA12]

123. Our command structure and current social attitude...

...can't lead or handle leadership necessary for a conscripted force. Military effectiveness would go to ZERO!

[joe_sixpack]

125. The military is getting ready to actively decrease its ranks

why would we need a draft?

[madamesilverspurs]

130. Only if

those who profit the most from war serve on the front lines for the duration. Their family members, too.


-

[Arkana]

131. This isn't Israel, Mr. Rangel, and I don't think emulating them is the best thing.

Some people don't want to serve and should not be forced to do so.

[NuclearDem]

133. Absolutely not

As much as I would want it back to send a message, I wouldn't wish what happened to me in Afghanistan on anyone, even the children of the rich.

[pitohui]

134. no, it is morally wrong to draft people to kill other people

we live in an age of robots and programmable devices, we do not NEED cannon fodder, the only reason for a draft would be to dispose of unnecessary males who drive up the crime rate


the bright, educated people we need to run a modern military machine are not the kind of people you haveta draft

it is my modest proposal that we have legal, safe family planning so that unnecessary males aren't here in the first place

but once they are here, to draft them simply to kill them in bullshit wars is just pure dee evil

[ileus]

136. Why?

[hack89]

146. We can't afford it - it would explode the defense budget.

People have forgotten how much smaller the military is now. To make it fair, the Army would have to be huge - more draft eligible men plus now drafting women. How are we going to pay for all their equipment, bases, pay and benefits? If you keep the military the same size them only a very fraction would actually serve - it would not be seem as a shared sacrifice and would cause enormous resentment.

[HughBeaumont]

148. Funny thing about fishing . . . . it never works out so well for the BAIT.

Protests galore are happening in Wisconsin and Ohio almost on a daily basis. Hosni Walker and John Fascist are like "Yeah, that's nice that people are concerned and that's their right, but you know what . . . I'm pretty much going to do whatever I want anyway." Bargaining rights - gone. PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. That worked. Now GET OUTTA THE CAPITOL. You're stinking up the place, hippies!

Y'all think the same shit's not gonna happen in terms of wars? That our corporate-owned-and-run government will listen to "teh people" even if their sons and daughters are eligible for the draft?

Illegal occupations are a by-product of unbridled capitalism. They don't call this the "Military/Industrial Complex" for nothing. If men and women have no other options in life since there's no Ford plant, steel mill or factory to go to after high school like there used to be, then the military already HAS an endless supply of cannon fodder.

The only thing that's going to stop Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (likely) is to start threatening the RICH.

Start making the ruling class run for their fucking LIVES.

Some say violence is the only way bullies listen? Folks, there ain't NO BIGGER BULLY ON EARTH than the uncaring and sociopathic wealthy.

[2gabby]

151. oh that's the best one, the bait

That says it best for me. Glad I came back to check this thread, or I'd have missed it. Have to remember that one, its the definitive answer.

[2gabby]

152. Thinking more about what you said. Nationwide strike is what its gonna take

To end the wars. I think at this point, its my semi-educated opinion that a strike is the only thing the robber barons truly fear. It's the only thing that would hurt them. Hit them where they live. My 2 cents, since I have no idea what would make a national workers strike happen.

[sarcasmo]

150. Yes, with no loopholes.

[undeterred]

154. kicking for those who missed it

[sibelian]

155. This is a very silly, wrong-headed idea.

I've posted the paragraph below several times but I'm going to keep doing it.

I strongly suspect that bringing the ubiquity of warfare closer to the homes and families of the typically unaffected is more likely to engender the acceptance of warfare as a normality of life.

In particular, a draft will foster the perception, through conflation, that such problems cannot be solved and one can only do what one is told. This is the attitude of the citizens of nations that have a draft.

People don't think in straight lines but in parallel clusters of related, mutually supporting ideologies. If there is a draft, the average person is likely to assume that it's necessary.

I will also add that legislating that tries to trick people into thinking rationally is a very bad idea. Legislation that tries to trick people into thinking rationally by forcing them - on pain of imprisonment - to undertake the activity the legislation is secretly trying to end is a very VERY bad idea.

[undeterred]

156. Thanks for your opinion.

As you can see, before you made your post, I started a poll to ask for opinions without stating my opinion. The purpose behind bringing back the draft is not what some people think it is. Perhaps some people misunderstand, or they are just "silly or wrong-headed".

At any rate, DUers seem to be pretty evenly divided on the issue.

And judging by my other poll- almost everyone at DU would like to see the troops brought home from Afghanistan immediately, whether they support the reintroduction of the draft or not.

[handmade34]

158. yes

A "Universal National Service Act" that mandates ALL (men, women, all socio economic groups, etc) to either serve in the military or do public service

[The Backlash Cometh]

159. Liberals who vote "yes" because they think that the draft will create an upswell against a war

are clueless.

Do you think that those at the top really give a shit about what we think? What have you seen in the last twenty years that makes you think so?

[Chemical Bill]

160. End the fucking wars! n/t

[Blue-Jay]

161. Aside from "getting even" with the well-to-do, I don't see why we need a draft.

And as we all know, the well-to-do will still find ways around a draft ("other priorities", anyone?). Our volunteer military is sufficient. Sure there's a disproportionate amount of "poor kids" who enter as a way to dig themselves out of poverty, but that doesn't mean that we should force "Kevin" who wants to work on cars/get an office job/play the trumpet to join the navy. And by that logic, we also shouldn't force "Reginald Wellington III" who wants to sit on his ass/fuck models/snort coke to join the army.

The rich connected kids would have the means to bypass the draft anyhow, so how is that going to help solve our current disparity in wealth?

Answer: It aint.

[CommonSensePLZ]

162. Yeah, how about I'LL decide when I want to die in a war. ~nt

[uppityperson]

163. hell no. Ending wars by giving more bodies to throw into it is an asinine idea.

[L0oniX]

164. We don't want our children turned into killers ...unless they enlist. pfffft!

[truebrit71]

168. Yup. See how quickly the gung-ho wingnuts change their tune after Johnny Tea Patriot has to put his

..his kid's life on the line...