Rangel Introduces Universal National Service Act! AKA THE DRAFT! Gee..how timely....

[indimuse]

http://rangel.house.gov/news/press-releases/2011/03/rangel-introduces-universal-national-service-act.shtml


March 17, 2011 | Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced the Universal National Service Act, commonly referred to as the draft bill, ahead of the 8th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, March 19, 2011. The Congressman, a Korean War Veteran, has introduced similar legislation in the past that addresses not only the need for a more equitable military draft, but also establishes a universal requirement for National Service.

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country," said Rangel. "So few families have a stake in the war because it is being fought by other people's children."

Despite being called an "all-volunteer" army, Rangel notes that economic reasons drive many of our nation's military recruits to join the armed forces in addition to patriotism.

"The largest segment of our fighting force comes from large urban centers with high unemployment, and from economically depressed small towns," said Rangel. "This small portion of the population forces many soldiers to take multiple tours of duty, sometimes as many as six deployments."




:(

[Shagbark Hickory]

1. Didn't he get shit-canned?

[EFerrari]

37. Rangel is hugely popular in his district and not even the machinations

of Porter Goss, career BushCo manipulator, hitman and scumbag, can change that.

[vaberella]

40. Sadly...I'm in his district. I can't stand the man. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

2. Trying to drum up donations for his re-election now that he's no longer cheating on his taxes?

Guess money's tight, so he's got to go back to the well.

BTW, I wasn't aware that the military was stretched tight since the Iraq war ended and combat troops have been withdrawn according to schedule.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Your screen name is "ClarkUSA". I assume that's a leftover from the general running.

Charlie's been putting this bill up for years. The last time was when he was four square behind a Clark candidacy. Were you opposed to it then? Did you post ridiculing snark against him then?

[madmax]

17. +1

[ClarkUSA]

28. That was then, this is now. The Iraq war is over w/combat troops are being withdrawn on schedule.

I merely asked a question. I know Charlie Rangel and his staff, having been to his fundraisers in the past, so spare me the fingerpointing.

[RetroLounge]

34. "The Iraq war is over"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RL

[ClarkUSA]

35. That's why Iraqis celebrated in the streets last August. They know the facts; why don't you?

[cui bono]

39. They know the facts and that is why they are protesting.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/116971013.html
Posted on Sat, Feb. 26, 2011

The Iraq protests were fueled by frustration over corruption, chronic unemployment, and shoddy public services. "We want a good life like human beings, not like animals," said Khalil Ibrahim, 44, one of about 3,000 protesters in Baghdad.

Demonstrators knocked down blast walls, threw rocks, and scuffled with club-wielding troops. The center of Baghdad was virtually locked down Friday.

Many Iraqis rail against a government that locks itself in the capital's highly fortified Green Zone, home to the parliament and the U.S. Embassy, and that is viewed by most of its citizens as more interested in personal gain than public service.

Iraq's deadliest clashes were reported in the northern city of Mosul, where hundreds rallying outside a provincial council building came under fire from guards. Officials said five people were killed. The other deaths were reported in four other cities.

[ClarkUSA]

45. They are protesting Maliki's government, which is their right as a democracy.

Notice they are not protesting the war with America because THERE IS NO MORE WAR WITH AMERICA.

[2banon]

49. You're right. It's just permanent Occupation

by the largest "city/state embassy" on the entire planet (other than the Vatican)

[ClarkUSA]

51. According to you, our embassies have "permanent occupations" all over the world.

Of course, they have done the same to us. :eyes:

[2banon]

52. not exactly the same thing..

I think you know that, don't cha?

[ClarkUSA]

53. Sure. Think Korea, Germany and Japan. We have "permanent occupation" troops there, too, I guess.

:sarcasm:

[RetroLounge]

44. All those flowers tossed at our feet, right Mr. Rumsfeld?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RL

[ClarkUSA]

46. Why don't you check out the photos from that day? Pres. Obama ended the Iraq war. Period.

[RetroLounge]

58. Yep, with the stoke of his mighty pen

superman saved the day, ended the war, and brought 100% of our troops home.

Oh, wait, he didn't do that, did he?

You keep wearing those knee-pads, I'm sure you'll be rewarded.

RL

[cui bono]

18. Really? Tell that to the troops. They are overworked, suffering PTSD, have a high suicide rate....

Are their rotations back to "normal"? Are the mercenaries off the payroll?

And exactly how has the Iraq war ended? Why are we defending our extravagant embassy over there then?

[ClarkUSA]

32. Check your facts. The Iraq war has ended; combat troops are being withdrawn on schedule.

Which means the pressure on troop rotation is not nearly as dire as it was under BushCo. For example, Pres. Obama has generally gotten rid of what was widely known as the back-door draft:

Reduction in the use of stop-loss

In March 2009, Gates ordered a deep reduction in the number of personnel affected by the stop loss policy.<11> "Gates said the goal is to reduce that number by 50 percent by June 2010 and to bring it down to scores or less by March 2011".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

[cui bono]

36. You're somewhat correct. The occupation is still ongoing. I shouldn't have used your term of war.

War was never declared. It is and was an illegal occupation.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Wrong again. Your subjective opinion does not reflect the facts.

Hate to tell you, but PM Maliki and the Iraqi parliament don't object to our presence. That makes our presence there quite legal, as it is in Korea, Germany, and Japan.

[cui bono]

61. Puppets usually don't object to their string pulling masters. Maliki wouldn't be in his position

if it weren't for us.

[ClarkUSA]

62. What garbage. The leaders of Germany, Japan, and Korea are also "puppets"?

Such baseless rhetoric is laughable. Don't waste my time further.

[cui bono]

63. You take varied countries and situations and try to equate them without reasonable discussion

and what I say is garbage?

Fine. Be on your way. I agree with your last sentiments.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Matariki]

3. Good.

Maybe people will FINALLY notice how many wars we are in.

[sasha031]

8. that's the premise behind it

Charlie suggested doing that during the Bush years. He believed if people were faced with the possibility of serving in the military during war. Perhaps there wouldn't be so much support for foreign adventures.

[sibelian]

14. I'm sorry, but their noticing will be accompanied by other shifts in perception.

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.

[cui bono]

20. You mean like they did in the 60's/70's?

It has been shown to have the opposite effect.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Clueless to think it's going to make a difference.

The right-wing get hard-ons when it comes to war. They would love nothing more than to find a reason to drag Liberals into the fight. They're laughing at you and Rangel thinking this is going to stop them. The rich always find a way around the rules, and only rarely get caught. Ask Rangel.

[Matariki]

55. You might be right.

I'm just disgusted with the general apathy.

[silver10]

4. This is great but really a wet dream for the right

The rich will find reasons to get of the draft or find state-side assignments just like their dads and grand dads (see pretty much Bush and his entire administration). This is no sweat off of their balls AND a dem can be blamed for it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Rangel did this in 2002/3 and for the same reasons. n/t

[murielm99]

7. Yes he did.

And I appreciate his reasoning. Maybe we will think twice about all these wars if more of us have a stake in it.

[2banon]

50. I thought he did this annually, since the Iraq Invasion..

I know he tried again in 2007. I think that was the last time. But really, it's time for him to retire. please Rangel. enough already.

[Andy823]

6. Well...

I know all about the "draft" I was drafted back in 1970 and went to boot camp in January 1971. My draft number was 10! I had no doubts about going into the army, none at all! The only good thing about a draft is that everyone has to be subject to being drafted. Of course those with "clout" usually find a way out. If there were a draft there should also be new rules that make it harder for those with "influence" to get out of the draft! If we started a draft, which I really doubt, and more of the "rich" kids had to go over an fight, the war would end in no time at all! The reason their will be no draft is simple. Rich kids won't have to go, they will go to college, and then get the high paying jobs. It will be the poor kids that will do the dirty work, fight the wars, and risk their lives. It's the GOP way and they will never change that!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[AndyTiedye]

19. There is No Such Thing as a Fair Draft

The draft never was fair and never will be. It really can't be.
Even if the sons of the rich and powerful are forced to serve,
they will "serve" in champagne units like Dubya did.

Medical deferments will be abused by those like Cheney,
while those who really are disabled but have less access to
medical care are forced to serve. Yet eliminating such
deferments would also be grossly unfair.

A draft is also profoundly anti-labor.

Think about someone like Wisconsin's Governor Walker
further empowered with the threat to replace state workers
with conscripts doing their "national service".

[Scuba]

9. Good for Charley!!!! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. It will never pass. The rich kids would have to sign on.

That's not going to happen.

[Faygo Kid]

30. That's his point. To draw attention to those who enlist for economic reasons.

He knows it has no chance. I'm glad he's shining a light here; we all know the Koch family isn't going into the military.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. I know. That's why he did it before.

Not a chance in hell any RWer's kid is going to be drafted.

[Modern_Matthew]

13. I'll never fight for this country. You can take that to the deregulated bank. nt

[themadstork]

26. Yes.

I hate the presumptuousness of a draft. "Hey, we need bodies to blow up, and, uh, since you weren't really DOING anything with yours. . ." Kind of funny that conservatives support it.


I'd rather rot in jail than fight in a war.

[Hannah Bell]

15. "has introduced similar legislation in the past "

rangel has repeatedly introduced such bills if i remember correctly. in service of making a political point.

i don't think there is anything significant about his latest bill.

i don't think the ptb want a universal draft; the last time we had same it led to an organized anti-war movement.

[xchrom]

16. Recommend

[isuphighyeah]

21. He does this all the time. n/t

[truedelphi]

23. The Powers that Be will never ever allow for the return of the Draft.

They have very clear memories of how the "Ya all gotta got to Vietnam" debacle worked out. Millions of protesters in the streets - better to maybe get clubbed by a Chicago police man than to get sent to go and fight in Vietnam.

Within two months of Nixon introducing the draft "lottery," the rebellion quieted down. Why should those who held low numbers spend time fighting an enemy that no longer existed for them?

Take a person's self interest out of the equation, and no rebellion, including the anti war rebellion, will succeed.

[BobbyBoring]

25. I wish

I could figure out what in the hell you're saying!

[truedelphi]

56. Simply this - we had a Universal Draft

And it got everyone. Even Elvis Presley was drafted.

And by the time that the Baby Boomer generation was to get drafted, we were in the middle of a very long, pointless war called Vietnam.

Many potential draftees did not want to go to Vietnam. Since almost everyone who was male was eligible,
the opposition to the war was quite fierce. There is strength in numbers.

Rebellion in the streets. Chicago Summer 1968. Entire Universities closed down after Kent State. Etc.

So the Powers that Be decided to have a lottery. That immediately divided the population of those who might end up in Vietnam to a much smaller number. And the rebellion was quashed.

[Autumn]

24. It's time, If we are going to police the world

we need fresh fodder. No sense in the volunteer troops having to go for more and more tours.

[randr]

27. The idea of a Universal National Service Act, if that is what it is to be called

is something we should put on the plate for discussion. Service could be directed in many areas as seen fit by participants. Educational opportunities, benefits to communities where services are rendered, and mostly, to me, a sense of duty to country that helps unite us as a people would be just a few of the things to be gained.

[Shiver]

43. I've often said the same thing, as controversial as it might be.

My preference would be that people would choose what service they enter, be it military, education, Peace Corps, whatever, and serve a required stint, possibly gaining them money for college afterward. The downside would be that no matter how well-formed the system is made, someone will figure out how to get their rich son into a cush position at the expense of someone who wanted it or deserved it more, forcing them to do something else.

But I agree that it could bring a sense of unity and community to people, as well as train them for a job they might not know they liked. Say this happens, and Bob takes a position teaching English to recent immigrants, and finds out he loves it and finds it rewarding. When his service is finished, perhaps he goes to school to study for a similar position.

Lots of wrinkles to iron out in the idea, naturally, but I honestly think it's something that should be discussed seriously.

[Safetykitten]

29. Excellent idea.

[vaberella]

38. I've been voting this man out of Congress for years. He'll never leave fuckin' Harlem.

Deranged old bat.

[Better Believe It]

41. So Rangel thinks these wars "contribute to the defense of the country"

Right.

If the government is going to go on an all-out war footing, three, four, many wars, they need a military draft.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. No disrespect intended, but I wonder whether you are missing

Rangel's point which, as I understand it, is that the country will be far more cautious about foreign adventurism if the children of the rich and the middle class are required to fight also.

With universal military conscription, the chances that morons and evildoers like Bush and Cheney can plunder and wreak havoc are sharply reduced because the middle and upper classes will have an incentive, their 'skin' being in the game so to speak, to exercise far more due diligence.

One can plausibly argue that universal military conscription will lead to fewer wars. Although I admit the point is arguable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. GOOD... we need it

[Chorophyll]

47. Rangel brings this up from time to time to remind Congress

that the burden of our military involvement falls on the poor, working class, and ethnic in this country. I'm not saying he's a wonderful person, but he's an old-style liberal and he pushes this issue to point out that while the well-off might favor these military actions, they (for the most part) do not send their own children into harm's way.

[coalition_unwilling]

60. Yes and just because someone as unpalatable as Rangel says it

does nothing to take away from the moral justice behind the argument.

Attacking the argument merely because Rangel makes it constitutes some sort of a reverse 'ad hominem' attack.

[Book Lover]

48. Again?

The man's like clockwork with this.

[Canuckistanian]

57. Yeah

He`s been on this for years, even during Bush`s reign.

[Heywood J]

64. Rangel evidently missed that part about the land of the free.

Free to be conscripted and die in some despot's war when Bush III decides Haliburton's profits are low. Universal military conscription is no more fair than universal collective punishment - either you are free or you are not. Just because there's a 1/10,000,000th chance of it applying it to everyone does not mean that it's acceptable to create an endless force of slaves that can be used to conquer foreign nations in the name of profit.

"So few families have a stake in the war because it is being fought by other people's children."

Rangel's solution to this problem is to make everyone worry that their children might come home in a box, missing limbs, electrocuted, or poisoned when Iraq III rolls around.


I resent ethically-challenged assholes like Rangel wanting to sacrifice the lives of unwilling Americans under the veneer of "equality". I'll put it in Rangel's own words:

"When human lives are in jeopardy, there should be outrage."

Well, Chuck, I hope you can stand the outrage when you're the one putting them there.


This from the man who solicited donations from corporations on Congressional letterhead, used rent-controlled apartments as offices, "failed to disclose" income tax on his Dominican villa and took trips paid by corporations lobbying his committee (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel#References">Citations). Now he wants to risk the lives of his constituents as well? Putting a D after a scumbag doesn't make him any less of a scumbag.