HELP! Confused about C. Rangel's draft talk. Crazy or smart???

[RiverStone]

Damn, I was having such a peaceful Sunday morning. Then I happen to catch the tail end of Charles Rangel's "reinstating the draft" talk. As a parent of 2 draft age kids, I felt an immediate reaction. At first a very angry one, but after a few deep breaths......think I need to ponder this move a bit. :freak:

Is Charles Rangel promoting a "draft" to create mandatory community service (i.e. young people giving back to our community at hospitals and schools)? If so, it may have some merit. Is CR promoting a draft to scare the shit out the rethug elites suburbanites, who never have had to worry about their kids spilling blood on a battle field? Then it may be smart. But if CR is promoting a draft that could somehow drag my son and daughter into a future war, who's seeds were planted by the hatred BushCo has brought upon this country, then I'd go ballistic!!!

As a life long dedicated Democrat, if a draft were to be seriously promoted by our party's leaders that comes close to resembling the last time we had a draft, I'd bolt the DEMS for a third party in a heartbeat. And I'd look at land in Canada for my 2 draft age children.

I'm confused. Should Charles shut the f-ck up on this, or keep talking?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-19-military-draft_x.htm

[LaurenG]

1. He should stop it (IMO)

I am against the draft but I'm against war so what do I know.

[MichiganVote]

2. Unnecessary.

[Monkeyman]

3. The Draft will not happen just my opinion

[951-Riverside]

4. It will be political suicide but it will drum up massive support against the war

of course when everyone votes republican again and they do away with the draft it will be short lived.

[TahitiNut]

5. It's honest and direct. I happen to agree with Charlie.

Want a democracy? Participate.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[upi402]

18. I think you are talking to the war profiteering Republicans

They want this war for profit, and Republicans exploit idiots who feel immune from the consequences.
Rangel is just saying, "ante up ya phony chickenhawk supporters".

It isn't going to happen -the draft. But it might make the rabid yellow elephant support fade even more by calling their bluff.

[Opusnone]

27. Exactly

Is there a GWOT or not?

[TahitiNut]

26. Well, that's the typical personal attack of a spoiled brat. It's the moral equivalent ...

... of the "ownership class" who're enriched by the labors of others. So, you're willing to pay for the war and killing as long as sombody else does the dirty work, huh? "Fair weather 'democrats'" who go along with democracy as long as they agree but sneer at the "sheeple" when they don't get real tiresome.

Read http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/314
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/294

[havocmom]

34. Don't think slavery was what the gentleman was supporting.

Slavery, or near slavery is what we have NOW. A universal draft would blow the scions of the rich and famous into a time of service along with the poor who have little choice in today and tomorrow's economy.

When ALL people spend time in service to the nation, more will actually appreciate the sacrifices made to secure democracy and you can be DAMNED SURE there will be fewer frivolous invasions/occupations just to pump up corporate profits. The kids of the people running those companies are not in much danger at present. Perhaps if they were, the companies might not be quite so fucking greedy.

When it's your own contribution to the gene pool at risk, decisions get made more carefully. TahitiNut has your kid's future at heart when advocating universal service. Unless you make a shit load of cash, your kids are MORE at risk when the decision makers don't have to worry about keeping kids safe. They don't give a damn about any but their own. And a draft will certainly get America to put down the clicker, get out of the recliner, and take to the streets en masse to make the leaders be a tad more selective about starting wars of convenience.

[IndyOp]

51. TahitiNut is a Vietnam Veteran. I don't appreciate your tone towards him.

If EVERY parent's child was in danger of having to go to war THE PEOPLE would rise up and DEMAND and end to wars.

I am for the draft because I am for ending all wars.

I am for the draft because I am sick and tired of "supporting the troops" being empty rhetoric.

I am for the draft because I am daily surrounded by red, red college students who need to be SLAPPED awake.

I am for the draft because I don't want another single god-damned soul on this earth having to go through what TahitiNut and several of my family members have gone through.

:(

[peacetalksforall]

58. And they might demand that we have a responsivle VET

organization and no President who cuts funding and support like the George Administration has done so they can take money from one account to use it for their corporate agenda.

I'm against war so I want to avoid the consequence of decisions like this one, but not having a draft appears to be quite unjust as we are debilitating and killing a certain economic group and it's done under the guise of a concocted loyalty that politicians have spun.

Everything this administration has done has been a slap in the face to the citizens and now it's coming back at them by examination. This discussion and debate is good.

I guess this means I think the rational of Rangel has merit as a discussion point and a wakening up. Sometimes you have to rattle peoples' minds to get some wake-up knowledge to drop in.

I think Rangel is a brave man - sometimes bravery is more than just being someone holding a physical weapon or standing up to a physical weapon.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. I agree too.

It proves that the GOP would leave the country defenseless, in order to win a few votes!

[Warren Stupidity]

31. "Participate". implies voluntary action.

And Mr. Rangel is not honest with this proposal. It is dishonest and manipulative. The war will end if we only had a draft? Tell that to the 50,000 we left in Viet Nam.

[TahitiNut]

39. As a Viet Nam veteran and draftee, it sounds to me like you don't recall those days.

While the U.S. 'involvement' in Viet Nam began in the mid-50's, what most think of as the "Viet Nam era" began in 1964. The draft in those days was often corrupt - local draft boards were notoriously in the pockets of the affluent and connected, much like Mr. Potter. The deferment system favored the Dick Cheneys and Rush Limbaughs and George W. Bushes whose family wealth afforded them the 'right' kind of doctors, the money to go to college, or the connections and influence to get into the National Guard or a draft-deferred job. The lottery-based draft didn't come into effect until the 70's ... and we were out of Viet Nam in 1973.

While not perfect, the lottery-based draft is far better than what preceded it - the system I was drafted by. The first improvement I'd make is to include women. The gender bias in conscription goes back to the days when women weren't allowed to vote. (Yes, the draft goes back many decades before 1919 when women were given the vote.) It's ridiculous to claim women aren't qualified to perform military service - of every kind. In my years in the military, including Viet Nam, I never saw or heard of a role that women couldn't perform as well as men. While there are roles that many women couldn't perform, those are the same roles that many men couldn't perform - roles requiring extremes in physical abilities. Gender is not a qualification.

The second improvement I'd make is to make it a Universal Service Obligation - military, Peace Corps, Public Health Service, VISTA, etc. Everyone - not just the unlucky.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. I'll repeat myself. We left 50,000+ in vietnam, mostly draftees.

The theory that reactivating the draft will end the war is bullshit not supported by facts. The draft provides a steady stream of fresh meat for the war machine, unhindered by lack of enthusiasm for whatever imperial adventure/corrupt scam the elites happen to be all gung ho about.

The equity of the draft is a side issue. Despite the apparant fairness of the lottery system, it still allowed student deferments and it never actually was put to the test for a variety of reasons. You would have a better case with WWII and its draft, although I would still insist that the rich and connected were, as always, able to avoid real danger.

[TahitiNut]

45. I disagree. Despite the hyperbole, Iraq is NOT Viet Nam.

The moral legitimacy of our involvement in Viet Nam was marginal, at best, but the moral legitimacy of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is non-existent. It's a crime against peace - war crimes!

Oh ... and I don't need to be reminded by ANYONE that 58,000 Americans died in Viet Nam!! :grr:

[PsN2Wind]

47. A quick trip to Google

where the consensus seems to be that about 30% of those killed in VietNam were draftees. Hardly most.
Also you might want to take a look at the numbers of "rich and connected" that in World War II did not try to "avoid real danger"

[TahitiNut]

50. That's right. Draftees did NOT get killed disproportionally.

That's a myth. One of many. It's also a myth that there were 'volunteers' and 'draftees' - since many 'volunteered' under the illusion they'd have more control over their fate than if they were drafted. In most cases, that just wasn't true - with the possible exception of those who enlisted in the Air Farce or Navy. Sadly, however, even that didn't get them a "get out of Nam alive" pass.

[PsN2Wind]

64. Even enlisting in the Navy or Air Farce

was no guarantee that you wouldn't end up "in the shit". Met a guy here in the retirement community I live. Knew his ass would be drafted, so he enlisted in the Navy. He had been working construction, so they put him in the SeaBees. He did his tour at Khe Sanh.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Beware of quick trips to google.

The numbers are not that easy to process. Yes the 'volunteer' marines contributed a large share of the dead, but counting them as strictly volunteers is a dubious proposition. Over on the army side, the dead are 50% draftees, and once again the remainder, supposedly volunteers, were not neccessarily in the service by their own free choice.

I'll go with your 30% though. That would be 15,000 dead people who were forced into a bad war and paid the ultimate price. That would be 15,000 too many.

[PsN2Wind]

65. Well, I know Google isn't 100%

but there are probably more accurate than statistics you pull outta your a**.

[PsN2Wind]

44. Damn TahitiNut, now you've been outed as a Repub

and a proponent of slavery. What are you trying to do, get people off their asses to protest the war, even those that have no "skin in the game"? I hope I haven't been tainted by my association with you but, I too think, Charlie is right.
Shortly after this fiasco began, I e-mailed McCain asking him why if the country was fighting for its very survival as he and Dubya professed, there was no draft, so everyones kid could join in the festivities, why there was no sur-tax to pay for the war as it is fought and why no anti-profiteering laws. Never heard back.

[TahitiNut]

46. Yeah. Me and Charles Rangel. Republicans. Go figure.

Well, even as an anti-partisan, I don't mind being associated with Rangel. I'll take his six anytime. I strongly prefer the company of people who put their skin in the game to the "checkbook liberals" who think they can pay to have others (called "less fortunate" in a condescending tone) do the dirty work in a democracy - people who self-servingly proclaim the virtues of a democracy, until they disagree with how it's going and want to take their marbles and go home.
:puke:

[musette_sf]

59. I'm with you

Every young American should be expected to perform a period of national service.

If you're a CO, there will be plenty of other ways you can provide service to your country.

If you want America to have a strong military, you should be willing to participate. If every American is expected to participate in service, I think the people would be far less willing to support illegal military/police actions abroad.

I am sick and tired of this volunteer military, which exploits the the poor and middle-class, and encourages participation from society's malcontents who LIKE to kill, maim and destroy for entertainment purposes.

This includes every sanctimonious winger nutter with their "Freedom Isn't Free" bullshit. News flash - freedom costs more than a god damned $3 car magnet made in China.

[bowens43]

6. Completely fucking stupid and misguided.

[napi21]

7. I believe he said:

IF we are going to continue to insist on sending more troops to Iraq, and threated Iran, Syria, and North Korea, then we are going to have to reinstate the draft.

I think the operative word here is "IF".

It IS the Pugs who are all screaming now for another 20,000 troops in Iraq, and they don't want to hear about TALKING with Iran, and of course they wanted to bomb NK when they tested the missles. He's absolutely right that we cannot possible do that without adding a significant #of people to our existing militart, and even with lowered standards andsigning bonuses,they're just not getting the enlistments in big enough numbers..

[lcordero2]

8. sorry

Sad to say, but a kid born into this age doesn't owe anybody anything, and especially not a damn thing to a community that makes it earn less than livable wages and pay an arm and a leg for rent, utilities, car, and car insurance.

[upi402]

11. He wants to have Joe 6pack lookin' at skin in the game

Arrogant bushistas that I know would piss themselves if it was THEIR kid, or worse *THEM*:wow: -to be forced to go.

[OwnedByFerrets]

17. They wouldn't go even if there was a draft........

there is precedent.

[upi402]

62. If we draft without college deferment...

there would be some trousers turned upside down on K Street.

[dogday]

12. Doesn't he also support mandatory 2-year service? nt

[seabeyond]

13. if we chose war after war and years of war, then yes.... we have

to give our troops relief and we do not have the troops to do this now. the reason ragel says is cause only the poor fight. maybe people will think twce if the middle/upper middle income sons and DAUGHTERS have to fight this battle

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Crazy. He's been thumping this particular tub for a while. I understand the reasoning

behind it, and don't entirely disagree, but politically it's insane. A disaster. An insane disaster.

[rolleitreks]

15. No mandatory national service in any form. The guy is

an effing idiot. Democrats have teenagers living privileged lives in comfy suburbs, too. Get used to it Charlie!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. A "citizens army" means that going to war becomes real.

I was opposed to the draft in the '60s. Even helped some kids on their way to Canada. Even burned my draft card, which was not heroic on my part, I'd already put in my four years.

Now, I think that the draft would be a good idea. Instead of sitting at home and watching the "smart bombs", seeing the glamorous troops all dressed up in the latest soldier fashion, and shrugging at the casualties, the American people would be forced to face the reality that war is about killing and death.

Having the politicians and tinware bedecked generals waving the flag and talking bravely about the "ultimate sacrifice" wouldn't send chills of patriotism down the spines, but shivers of fear.

And, I don't think the draft will be reinstated for just those reasons.

[Little Wing]

21. It's a confused message

First off, DU and most Dems want the troops pulled out, but now you're saying you're for the draft?

Draft for what?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The way to get them out is to make the war real rather than abstract.

You ask a great question. "Draft for what?" Which is exactly what Charlie is asking.

For a failed "war" and occupation? Because some politician wants to show off his jock strap?

How many Americans are cheering on the "War on Terror" because there is no affect on them? If reality is staring them in the face with an induction letter, you can damn well bet, that their support for the glorious war in Iraq and the "War on Terror" will disappear.

[Little Wing]

37. but that's not the message 90% of the population will get

It will be all about Rangel wanting to take your kids away.

[RiverStone]

29. Agreed! "What noble cause?" - said Cindy Sheehan

It is a confusing message.

[SusanaMontana41]

22. agreed

Doesn't much matter what Washington does. My 20-year-old son would rather kill domestic enemies than Iraqis.

[TahitiNut]

49. Yep. As it is, the "war" is a TV reality show whose ratings are falling.

That's how it's been dealt with by the public. "Voting" is, to most people, about the same as the "People's Choice" awards. Even on DU, people somehow think that voting is sufficent to keep a democracy. That's fucking nonsense. If anything, it's the last vestige of democracy as people participate less and less in their own governance. We're about as 'vested' in democracy these days as we're vested in Major League Baseball - a spectator sport supported by taxpayer dollars.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. A very apt metaphor. War is reduced to "winning the big game".

And, the medals and monuments are trophies to be won. The dead are reduced to names on a wall or meaningless statistics to be compared (favorably) to the dead cannon-fodder of other wars engineered by the bosses. Much like the scores in some World Series game. Except the scores in the various games are better kept and longer remembered.

Edited for another thought:

The same is true for elections. "Our team won!", so that's the end of it. Now we can all sit back and cheer. Our responsibilities as citizens are now turned over to the "leaders" who, because they're wearing our jersey, have only to keep power. Demanding that they do something with that power, other than ensuring their re-election, is damnable disloyalty.

[shadowknows69]

19. We have three choices

End the war, Start a draft or keep allowing the soldiers at it to go on their fourth and fifth tours and the price our society will pay for that will be fearsome. It will make the number of Vietnam vets that came back with their lives ruined look like a drop in the pond. No disrespect intended.

[Hubert Flottz]

28. I think you're right.

To expect the troops that we have now, to keep going back to Iraq tour after tour after tour, is the fucking outrage!

Bush needs to stop the fighting or start the draft! And Charlie Rangel should just sit back now and watch, because the DRAFT is going to happen and it will be Bush/Rummy's fault. The troops that we have now, will soon reach their limits of endurance, just like the equipment will. People weren't expected to do three or four tours in Vietnam.

[NVMojo]

20. it was stupid the first time he jerked it out ...

[Lilith Velkor]

23. Batshit crazy

He needs a second cup of STFU.

[Opusnone]

24. SMART

He is forcing the right to show its cards in the GWOT. They have none. What they do have is propaganda, rhetoric, faceless enemies and trumped up fear to keep the military industrial complex in business and the corporate welfare whores fat and happy.

Remove the threat by making them declare victory (it is their only option if we are about to start a draft) and the GWOT will be over.

Terrorism will still exist (as it has since WWII) but we can depend on our highly-trained, professional intelligence, homeland security and police forces to do their jobs and protect the US.

If corporations want to fight wars, let them hire Blackwater.

[Hamlette]

30. I agree with Rangel, we need a draft

People will have a bigger stake in what our government does and will (hopefully) become more involved. When bush starts talking about a misguided war everyone in the country will be looking to the babies who are draft age and say "is it worth my beloved dying for?"

A military based on all volunteers is too gung ho. If you don't agree with the war and you are in the military you're more likely to resist excesses or at least tell the rest of us what is going on. We need more "question authority" types in the military.

Switzerland has compulsory service for all men for most of their adult lives. Visit Switzerland duirng the summer some time. You'll see trains full of Swiss men from age 18 through about 40 (it seemed to me) in military gear with rifles headed to training. They do reserve training during the summer if/when not on active duty. Exactly how many wars have the Swiss started lately?

I have a draft age son. My husband was drafted during Vietnam. Oh yeah, and we should do it by lottery with NO exemptions. I too would go to Canada if my son were forced to fight in Iraq. I would have sent my son to WWII so I am not a pacifist. But I don't think any government can govern if we stop them and a draft with a lottery would prevent the government from going into stupid wars.

Twins get drafted, Laura waterboards Bush until he ends the war. IMHO.

My generation has been debating this for decades. In the 70s we favored an all volunteer army but we have changed our minds based on the history of what has happened.

[slaveplanet]

32. What was even more ominous

was Lindsey Graham's interview right after Rangel.
he said things like, I don't think we'll need a draft, because recruiting is way up??? and that he's fundamentally against the draft and feels it's unneccessary....BUT... We need more troops there immediately and we're going to get them there, and if we can't do it the present way then we may have to draft, because WE are not leaving until WE WIN THIS WAR!!!

[KingFlorez]

33. It's an anti-war tactic

It won't pass, not even Rangel will vote for it.

[Minnesota_Lib]

35. There is method behind Rangel’s madness…

Rangel is purposely being provocative. His first draft bill (HR 163, introduced in 2003 as I recall, and supported by the Black Caucus) called for universal service with little or no exemptions. It was never meant to pass. It was for show only.

It was meant, in part, to expose the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks whose prodigy are no where to be found on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also was meant to start a national debate about the issue of class and race in wartime military service.

With the strong possibility of the lame-duck Bush attacking Iran, I think Rangel is resurrecting this ploy to back pro-war chickenhawks into a corner, to put up or shut-up. If they want to fight endless wars, their children should make the same sacrifice they are asking others to make. Any form of a draft bill will never pass and Rangel and the other sponsors (whom are all anti-Iraq war) know this, but it will provide political ammo against any whom support new wars yet vote to protect the children of the “elite” from serving.

Charles is sly and this is a purely an anti-war political ploy on his part. Hopefully it will make it harder for the hawks to support any new Bushco adventures without losing credibility with the American voter during the next election cycle.

[Opusnone]

36. Why We Fight

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

Highly recommended.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The draft hasn't gone away, it is just on hold, and it enables

endless war at levels that would make the current Iraqi debacle seem acceptable. The draft, in all of its incarnations in this country since the civil war, has never been universal and has always simply taken the working poor and sent them off to die in wars that seem primarily designed to make the rich richer.

The one enduring achievement of the vietnam era antiwar movement was that we abolished the draft as a useful tool for imperial adventures. No thanks Mr. Rangel, please sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Cleita]

40. I have to say that back when we had compulsory military

service it was more positive than negative. Kids who couldn't afford to go to college could get technical and vocational training in the military, and if they were smart enough use the G. I. bill to go to college when they left the military. Also, it straightened out many a kid who was going down the wrong path and gave them confidence, discipline and self-esteem to set their lives straight.

I don't think we would have the drug problem that we have today if the addicts had done military service. I mean there would always be people who fall by the wayside, but I'm certain that most kids while they were in the service would have seen that there is more to life and wouldn't get involved with drugs in a destructive way.

What happened was that our country was led into an unjust war in Vietnam and I believe that destroyed our military infrastructure. If we do bring back the draft, we need to instigate checks and balances so that are military is never again abused by going into a war for any other reason than our defense. If Congress can't provide oversight, then we need an agency that can, maybe the governors of our states. I don't believe the civilian President of the USA should ever be allowed to declare a war again.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. "straightened out many a kid"

Sure enough, but not in the sense you mean.

[stray cat]

41. I think only poor kids should serve our country (sarcasm)

just like its currently set up

[etherealtruth]

54. That's right ...

We can attack anywhere, at our pleasure, because the kids that count aren't in the military:sarcasm:

Good Lord, if we actually had to talk about compulsory service the chicken hawks might not be so eager to attack here there and everywhere; what fun would that be?:sarcasm:

I don't want my kids sent to war. I don't want your kids sent to war. I don't want the kids of right wing nut jobs sent to war. Charlie Rangel doesn't want them sent either.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. And one more reason why this is STUPID

Do we really want the Democratic Party to be the party that reactivated the draft? Is that what we want to run on in '08?
Have you all (you who think that Mr. Rangel is right that we should bring back the draft) lost your minds?

[tritsofme]

53. Pelosi and Reid need to get out in front of this

And make it clear that the Democratic majority does not support reinstating the draft.

The GOP can make political hay out of this, and try to cast the Democrats as the "pro-draft" party, I can assure you that boomers and especially those voters and their children effected directly by a draft will be spooked as hell to read this in the paper tomorrow.

[Zorro]

55. I agree with Rangel

I think it would be a good thing. A few years on active duty in the military is quite a valuable education for any one, and there's nothing like a draft to make people more politically aware.

There is a recruiting problem, and this country is worth defending, despite this criminal administration's policies.

[bananas]

66. Democracy depends on an informed electorate

and as the war drags on, more and more voters would have first-hand knowledge of the situation.

[originalpckelly]

57. If Charlie keeps it up, he won't be running for office in 2008.(nt)

[Minnesota_Lib]

60. He 1st sponsored this draft bill in 2003. He was reelected with 94% of the vote in 2006.

I really don't think he has to worry.

BTW, Rangel voted against his own draft bill, HR 163. It lost 402-2.

[etherealtruth]

61. He's been saying this for years now ...

It seems his constituents understand his perspective.

I do not get the impression Mr. Rangel wants anyone's kids sent to war, I don't necessarily believe he wants compulsory service as much as he wants to highlight the hypocrisy of war mongers.

[high density]

63. Crazy bad and stupid

Worse than John Kerry trying to tell bad jokes.