House Democrat Wants Draft Reinstated

@Daniel,

Less inclined? How so? I mean, it could do that, or it could completely backfire and allow a much larger scale action to take place.

The draft should not be reinstated unless we want another Vietnam on our hands.

Stephen, do you think the prospect of the draft could make a lot of people who haven't been vocal in their opposition to the war raise their voices? This is an important point in democracy, the voice of the people is louder when there's a price.

I think that everone should serve 2 years in the military. It would make us less inclined to go to war.

I think every child should be stabbed in the stomach before entering kindergarten. It will teach them that violence is bad and make them less inclined to fight.

What the @!$%# are you thinking? This sure as hell wasn't my @!$%#ing "vote for change."

I think that everone should serve 2 years in the military. It would make us less inclined to go to war.

Yeah, because we know Israelis hate engaging in war in the common defense. Their mandatory serving period deters the public alright.

...not.

Uh...huh....

Well, they actually are shot in certain circumstances. Under fire, if a soldier fails to obey a direct or lawful order, they can be shot without court marshal without repercussions of the shooter. And that stuff happened in World War 2.

But one possible penalty for soldiers who desert is still death, though they almost always don't get that nowadays.

You're being sarcastic anyways, eh?

Yeah, because we know Israelis hate engaging in war in the common defense. Their mandatory serving period deters the public alright.

...not.

Actually, RegBarc, I think your analysis is overly simplistic. First, Israel is in a different context than the US -- we have Canada and Mexico on our borders. What's to say that without a draft Israel would have engaged in more war over the past 50 years?

What's to say that without a draft Israel would have engaged in more war over the past 50 years?

Israel's draft was no doubt out of necessity, as is the same idea behind Rangel's proposal.

Without a draft there would be no Israel.

@Pamela Drew,

Stephen, do you think the prospect of the draft could make a lot of people who haven't been vocal in their opposition to the war raise their voices? This is an important point in democracy, the voice of the people is louder when there's a price.

I do not think this would cause opposition to the current war, I think it would cause a huge uprising in the liberal youths and college students who are not voters. I believe that this could draw attention to the fact that there is a divide a lot deeper than the "should we be at war" one.

A draft is not necessary now and Rangel is using the current situation and administration to try and enact legislation that in the long run could create widespread rioting and a repeat to the 1960's and 70's.

Drafts do not keep "money mongers" eligible for war, instead it just forces them to stay in college longer on daddy's bill.

We do not want people who did not knowingly choose to serve fight our wars...

We do not want people who did not knowingly choose to serve fight our wars...

You should go talk to some World War II vets. I think they would beg to differ. And I trust their opinion for more than anybody's on this issue.

I trust the opinions of the guys that I know currently fighting in Iraq. Their ranks range from MSgt. to Capt. and their belief is that another body carrying a weapon is not necessarily a plus for them. The draft worked during WWII because people were much willing to fight a war they believed in and if a draft was necessary to help us win a conflict that was dear to the hearts of Americans then it would work.

I know what you mean about WWII vets and I very much respect what they have to say but I do listen to what current military soldiers say as well.

I trust the opinions of the guys that I know currently fighting in Iraq.

I agree that their opinions are important too. But keep in mind that most if not all of them have never had it any other way, so it is an opinion based on feel rather than experience.

because people were much willing to fight a war they believed in

You hit the nail on the head. The two wars we've lost as a country were the two wars the country as a whole did not believe in.

yes, that is one thing a draft will change for sure. There will no longer be a need to hire mercenaries like blackwater goons.

Behind My Screen wrote:

There will no longer be a need to hire mercenaries like blackwater goons.

Goons? Mercenaries? I trust you know the definitions of the words you use, and are able to justify their use?

lucretiuswombat
Yeas, and hoots. I think this is his main objective. The draft will not be reinstated but the controversy will be good for all.

Yes, I agree.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year.

There is no way Rangel thinks this even has a chance of passing, and he probably wouldn't propose it it he did think it had a chance. He's selling the sizzle, not the steak. Look at the outrage! Where was the outrage when 3,000 anonymous non-drafted working people were sentanced to die?

I agree that this is a ploy to point out the hypocrisy of the current administration and they know full well it would never pass, however I think it is a plan that could easily backfire. It would only take a administration bigwig to get on the news networks and yell "the dems want your children!" over and over to sway a lot of the conservatives that voted democratic in the midterms.

Where was the outrage when 3,000 anonymous non-drafted working people were sentanced to die?

Bush converted the outrage into fear, because fear has no intellect and is easy to manipulate.

...just clarifying that I wasn't refering to the WTC:

Where was the outrage when 3,000 anonymous non-drafted military working people were sentenced to die in Iraq?

Jon Patt

A draft should never be allowed again, and this IS NOT going to pass. Democrats are not worried about future wins... It is meant to showcase the policy if the administration really wants to occupy Iraq, North Korea, and Iran... we don't have the military to do so currently.

A Dem bringing this issue to the forefront highlights the hypocrisy of the administration and GOP agenda. Someone has to pay the price... and it's very few of a legislator's children or friends with an all volunteer force.

Different choices will be made by the GOP when they've got skin in the game. The public's awareness of this inequality has now been raised with Rangel's tactics.

Republicans want the war but don't want to pay the price? The Dems are simply being realistic and responsible.

Wasn't it the Democrats who initially pulled for political support by claiming that the Republicans would re-instate the draft? So this is just another political play, which looks like it's about to prove me wrong.

The argument that Republicans don't want to pay the price is riduclous. We are one nation and any analysis of the wars being waged should take into consideration domestic security as well as how screwed up some parts of the the world are before questioning our elected leaders' qualities in this manner.

Also, if you people are to have a definitive position on the draft, you should probably at least know the basics.

- What is the total size of the US military?
- What is US military spending?
- What is the structure of the US military and what is the relationship between increasing man-power and changing military structure.

If you can't answer these most basic questions, you are probably not qualified to make any aggressive statements. You can raise questions, but you are clueless about whether the draft would actually be beneficial, not to mention the fact that you probably do not even have the basic understanding of the current events in the Middle East.

Oh, and as far as the rich-vs.-poor claim, that's just ridiculous in this country in this day and age. I won't even address that.

Wasn't it the Democrats who initially pulled for political support by claiming that the Republicans would re-instate the draft? So this is just another political play, which looks like it's about to prove me wrong.

No, the Democrats were pointing out a potential cost of going to war to achieve the stated aims of the Bush administration. That if the country decided in favor of fighting the war that the Bush administration wanted, then the country had better reconcile itself with having a draft. As it turns out, the Bush administration, possibly fearing a backlash from voters who were pro-war as long as there wasn't a draft, was forced to limit the amount of troops to station in Iraq to a level below what the military knew it needed. Hense the failure to secure the country after the invasion. Hense Rumsfeld's resignation.

Daniel, much as I agree with your conclusion, your tone and method of argumentation isn't going to win any converts but the already converted.

Also, if you people are to have a definitive position on the draft, you should probably at least know the basics.

Since you didn't give answers to the questions you raised, we have to assume you don't know them. So take your own advice, and shut up.

So why are you here?

Vas, have you considered that you are interpreting and molding the situation to fit your model of Bush = Bad embarking on a flimsy chain of logic? At the risk of being sexist, there is an old Russian joke about such logic in females. A young man says to a young women "Hi Honey!" and the woman thinks. [Honey... bees make honey. Bees sting. Stings hurt. Bits hurt. Dogs Bite.] and then slaps the young man and says outloud: "Are you calling me a bitch?!?!?"

Moreover, your molding is very easy to do as you don't embark on a great deal of analysis instead dealing with very scant information.

Daniel, I actually live in this country starting with being a child in an immigrant family that came in '91 and had NOTHING. No language, no connections, no money. Since then my father started a company and went from being poor to having a successful business (SiMX) and so we are actually slowly moving up in the ranks having successfully left the lower class.

My point was not that there are no classes. My point was that in the US there is always a choice. And people who join the army do it for a myriad of reasons, but I doubt they ever do it because they have no other choice. Moreover, I have seen people join from all walks of life and from all classes, so your popular-disconent communist-sounding calls to bring down the rich are just sad. Especially if we consider that a lof of the people in our government served themselves knowing first-hand how bad war is. I am sure nobody in our government (Democrats or Republicans) take war lightly.

Correction above: to a young womAn

NikitaB, point taken, though I don't exactly agree with your characterization of my statements. I agree that I haven't supplied proof, and it is possible that I am projecting my own attitudes on Democrats (I was pro-mandatory military service before). Given the comments by other liberals here, that appears to be the case. One the other hand, Rangel and others supported a draft publicly at least three years ago:

"I think it's a combination of political move and more positively a wish to restore the concept of giving back to the community or serving the nation," said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information.

Here's a report of reactions to Rangel's proposal three years ago from Salon.com, a left-leaning publication.

Anyway, I'll stop defending Democrats on this issue, though I would like those attacking to provide some clear evidence, as I've asked. I'll stick to arguing for the mandatory military service, even if most liberals disagree with me. Ironically, the countries that most liberals point to as great examples of liberal countries are the very ones in Europe with mandatory military service, and those with a history of imperialism are the ones with voluntary armies.

Daniel, my point was not so much to to push my point as to undermine what I see an unreasonable position. I have my own views on the draft, but I do not feel that I know enough to make conclusive statements. I do know enough to see when others have as much or less information as I consequently invalidating their position.

Key statement you made:

They see it as an opertunity to make money

Can you show me how? Cheney has dissociated himself from Halliburton. No top leader profits directly to my knowledge and whatever profit they may gain is proportionally low in the short-term to their existing fortunes (and they'll be dead in the long-term). You could then try to argue that they are interested in power, but again, given the system, whatever power they have is limited in both scope and time. I've written a small article on the subject a while ago and I think it still holds true.

Vas, so you are suggesting that there is no hypocrisy in Rangel's position given his past behavior. Point taken.

On a personal note, while I do not know enough about the subject to make conclusive judgements, I do feel that a draft would be a terrible idea. It would significantly reduce the quality, increase the beaurocracy, and increase the number of troops rather than forcing the military to adopt to the changing world resulting in a larger number of American deaths. The system is overblown as is (which has been one of the primary gripes) and turning to the draft would kill it entirely - it would be expensive with very low efficiency.

The argument that it will hit home with the politicians also won't fly. If there was a draft and I was drafted, I would serve to protect this country and my parents would still vote republican - they see the unchecked growth of militant Islam as a grave mistake that has gone unchecked by Clinton and Carter. They feel that there must be a transformation of the non-Western governments before things really hit the fan.

My primary gripe with the positions exhibited above is the denial of the problem that has been growing over the past half a century and/or the denial of the fact that there comes a point when brute force must be applied. Until a person acknowledges this fact, drafts regarding discussion make no sense because a draft becomes something to control the government rather than a method that a government might employ for our protection.

What a convoluted load of diversional tripe. the purpose of which is to discredit any oppositional arguments

I see you've already met NikitaB.

Jimi: The world is flat because I've soiled my underwear!
Nikita: Wait, I am not an astronomer, but how does your soiled underwear prove the world is flat?
Jimi: AHAHAHAHAHAH!!! TROLL!!! YOU SEE HOW EVIL LURKS IN THE SHADOWS?

Vas, just saw this comment. Is this true? I am not jumping to conclusions, but I would like to know your take on this.

Actually, I don't know. I have no reason to believe Tom-109442 would be making it up, it would be kind of silly since it would be so easy to prove him wrong in public. It would be nice if we had a verifiable source as well as details.

On the face of it, it could very well be that Rangel is not actually for the draft, but is using this as a smart way to keep people honest (e.g. if you're really for this war, you would support the draft). It could also be a cynical political ploy, as some have suggested.

As I said above, I won't try to characterize or defend Rangel's or other specific Democrat leaders' motivations. I haven't seen evidence that proves either way, good or bad motivations, in the comments here. I do think it is a legitimate tie-in: if you support the Iraq War, you can't not support mandatory military service.

vas wrote:

I do think it is a legitimate tie-in: if you support the Iraq War, you can't not support mandatory military service.

Just this Iraq war, or any war?

Any war.

Vas, and I think that wars should be fought by professional volunteer armies where people choose to put themselves in danger in exchange for compensation. This results in minimal loss of life and best use of resources. Other than that, I think we've reached an agreement :)

Thanks Nikita. If I ever get the time, I'll try and write an article about this. It's a nuanced perspective, so it's tough to articulate.

vas, do let me know when you do - I would be very curious to read it :)

I love old people who generalize.

straighten em out by sending them to war? great idea. just like how we straighten out criminals by sending them to prison! war @!$%#s people up—mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually. drafting unwilling people into the services to suit the wants and needs of a few political morons is hardly justifiable. how about instead of spending billions of dollars on wars spend the money on education so we can produce some intelligent, level-headed kids who could actually come up with some better ways to run the world?

As I don't really agree with the draft, I have often thought that the American youth should have to spend a 1 or 2 years in a military branch of there choice, and also serve a 1 or 2 year stint in a food service job.
As for spending more money on education, I don't really think that that is the ticket either, the job of creating thinking rational human beings is the parents job, not a teacher, or sunday school teacher, or friend, but the parent.
Hopefully only the thought of this bill will get politicians to realize what they put people thru.

fay,

It is the job of both the teacher and parent. The failure is on the parents side though and parents are not being held accountable.

I think in an optimal world that would be the case, that teachers would also be teaching kids to think, however, with the way schools are set up, they don't teach to think, they teach to take tests, and to know facts. 2 very different things. I do agree that the parents are failing in teaching there kids to think. Parents are too busy complaining about being tired and needing to watch a tv show instead of working with there kids.

So we need a more fundamental shift, yes? Where will it start?
We have now a generation of parents raised to apathy. They must wake up and start caring, if there is to be a fundamental shift in our society. How do we effect that change?

If I can interject here...

punk, did you Vote? How many of you friends voted? How many joined in the military? How many protested when Bush took away habeas corpus.
Here's what Winston Churchill said about habeas corpus, "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." How many even have a clue as to what habeas corpus is? Who gives a damn what an old dead English dude says? I love it when punk kids have no respect or appreciation for this country or how lucky they are. Maybe a little time being owned by the Military IS what this generation needs to be able to appreciate what it is to live in a free country and what it feels like not to have any freedom when your ass belongs to the Government. I hope they draft you first.

1. Damn man, why are you so angry? If that's what years of having your ass ... owned by the military" does, I'm just gonna have to pass.

2. You celebrate and encourage freedom by ... taking it away? You deny citizens the very right you claim the military is here to protect? What the hell kind of logic is that? I'm sure there were Nazi soldiers who served not because they hated the world, but because they had loyalty to their country and took their government at its word - and they made the wrong choice. Who cares about voting at a time when the government does so much to make sure how the country actually does vote doesn't matter? Even with the incumbents losing some power, there's still huge discrepencies in the voting count - I want to offer some links here, but it won't allow me. Why, I don't know (or care, really).

3. I sure hope I can one day learn the valuable life lessons one can only attain by having the blood of another man on one's hands. Who knows, maybe the person you killed was just there to learn a life lesson too. But now he'll never get to apply it.

1. Damn man, why are you so angry?

Really, Daniel, I'm not even young and I'm wondering what your problem is. I took "I love old people who generalize" as a joke, actually, since it is so obviously a generalization.

Fay,

I do not know a single teacher who does not try to raise the critical thinking ability of any of their students. They have however been put into an environment that places emphasis on testing every single year and thus the amount of time spent on thinking critically is very limited.

BMS,
as I mentioned, that in an optimal world that is correct. Again, because of all the standardized testing they have not much opportunity to teach people to think, they only have time to instill facts, and many teach to take tests, and that is not only me saying this but half the teachers that I speak to on a daily basis, and I see about 15 - 20 a day. Did I say all teachers are trying to sabotage our kids? No. I don't believe any teachers are trying to sabotage our kids. I said that they are busy trying to get them ready to take tests, not think. That's is where I blame the parents, because they are so caught up in watching tv and blaming others for not raising there kids, that the kids grow up before they realize itl. Who would hold the parents accountable? Another government agency? We should be holding ourselves accountable, and getting off our fat American butts and talking to our kids, playing with our kids, teaching our kids, and showing them what is going on in out world, instead of sheltering them and giving them everything they know they can get because when ever they whine for something mommy and daddy what them to shut up so they can watch more tv. Hence, our entitlement nation.

bringing back the draft is a strong idea in that it will wisen up our government, and it will also eliminate another area where the poor suffer for the good of the rich

ideally, yes. but in truth and practice, the rich will still be able to weasel out of it somehow. do you really honestly believe that the politicians and those with enough money to throw around will let their kids off to war? i have a hard time believing that myself.

bringing back the draft is a strong idea in that it will wisen up our government, and it will also eliminate another area where the poor suffer for the good of the rich

ideally, yes. but in truth and practice, the rich will still be able to weasel out of it somehow. do you really honestly believe that the politicians and those with enough money to throw around will let their kids off to war? i have a hard time believing that myself.

oops!

iboga said "in truth and practice, the rich will still be able to weasel out of it somehow"

Exhibit A. - Richard Cheney
Exhibit B. - George W Bush

Here's a whole list of Chicken Hawks. The New Hampshire Gazette has done an incredible job of tracking and tagging them.

@Raconteur

Exhibit C. - John Kerry
Exhibit D. - William Jefferson Clinton

I'm sorry, what part Kerry serving in Vietnam is hard for you to understand? As for Clinton, well his presidency yielded exactly ZERO wars.

True, but he wasn't 100% peaceful if you'll remember. I'm not arguing one side or another, I'm just saying...let's not forget. Certainly nothing compared to the Bush presidencies.

@ Reconteur

Kerry initially attempted to avoid the draft by claiming he was going to college. This is documented. After his attempt was squashed he hurried to join the Navy to avoid getting drafted into the Army.

If you can claim that Bush by joining the Air National Guard he "weasled out" then Kerry did too.

Um, Kerry actually WENT to Vietnam, right? Is that in dispute at all?? As for Bush, well, if the Vietcong had it's designs on invading Texas, he'd have been in the right place I guess...

Funny how most all the kids whose parents had money ended up in their states National Guard, huh? I wonder how that happened...

Either you did or you didn't. There is no.."Well..he did think of not going..or whatever". It is a lame attempt to justify a lot of mistakes Bush has made. Face it ..if we have some senses, we will stop justifying and work on correcting mistakes that were made.

As for Bush, well, if the Vietcong had it's designs on invading Texas, he'd have been in the right place I guess...

Huh? What in the hell does that mean?

I was 18 in 1968 (you do the math) and I witnessed 1st hand the draft lottery! I had friends who watched weekly to see if their # was up. Oh, and as for making prisoners be an automatic for the draft, how about the young hippie kids of that era? If they were busted with a doobie, they were given the choice of either going to jail or going to Vietnam. I think just about all chose the latter.

The draft is a BAD idea. These boys and girls will never be the same when and if they return from war. In my city you see them (the Vietnam Vets) at most busy intersections begging for food and/or money. You see, this country's disabled veterans only get around $800 some odd dollars per month from the good ole USA. Try to live on that after fighting for your country...whether you joined voluntarily or were drafted.

It's a joke N C Kemp, that's all. I don't really think that the Vietcong were going to invade Texas...

...but if they did, W was there to protect it!! White stuff under the nose and all!! : )

No problem, Raconteur. Although there are parts of the city that have dual street signs -- Vietnamese and English. Think those are our tax dollars at work?

Oh, and don't forget ... Clinton never inhaled ;).

Here...here, Daniel! I 2nd both suggestions!

Are we too old to worry about it now? The draft, I mean. The doobies go without saying ;)

fritzg

I do believe that supporting the reinstatement of the draft would drastically change US Foreign Policy. And this is something I believe is long overdue with the Bush administration.

it'll never pass do not worry.

but it would make a lot of people a lot less cavalier about invading far away places if it did pass.

It should pass.
It is needed.
It would change foreign policy.
If implemented correctly, exceptions for illegitimate reasons could be minimized.
The rich couldn't avoid it if implemented correctly.
There were drafts in many wars, including Viet Nam.
If it doesn't pass, it will be because the people who vote on it are protecting themselves.

If it doesn't pass, it will be because the people who vote on it are protecting themselves.

If it doesn't pass (which it won't), it will be because those who vote on it are protecting the most fundamental example of personal freedom I can think of. This thread makes me ashamed to align myself with the left.

the most fundamental example of personal freedom I can think of

Can you explain?

Can you explain?

The liberty to do what I wish to do with my own time. Two years spent serving in the military, whether in peacetime or in wartime, is two years I could have spent nurturing a relationship with my wife and children. It's two years I could have spent in college, preparing for a career. Hell, it's two years I could have spent sitting on the couch playing video games and eating potato chips, which is my right as an American if that's what I wish to do with my time. How could it possibly be justified in a country that wishes to call itself "free" for the government to be able to point a finger at me, say, "You, get over here. You're ours for the next two years and if you try to escape it you'll be charged as a criminal"? How is that consistent with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Does liberty come for free? Would you have this liberty if there weren't a standing military ready to come to the nation's defense? Should we also lower the age of adulthood to birth (because that's 18 years where you are not free)? Should we abolish all taxes? Should we abolish all laws, because laws by their very nature impinge on your freedom?

If you've got an idea to accelerate the world's social evolution to the point where we don't need to defend ourselves from each other, I'd love to hear it.

Hell, it's two years I could have spent sitting on the couch playing video games and eating potato chips, which is my right as an American if that's what I wish to do with my time.

I agree with your point, I'd just amend it to say "my right as a human being."

Does liberty come for free?

Nope. It came from fine individuals who chose to risk their lives to make us that way and keep us that way. Your point?

Does it make sense to "pay" for liberty with liberty? I'd like to buy a thousand dollars from you, and I'll pay you $100 for it.

Would you have this liberty if there weren't a standing military ready to come to the nation's defense?

Nope. Your point?

Should we also lower the age of adulthood to birth (because that's 18 years where you are not free)?

I don't recall the government forcing me to do anything before I was 18. Sure, there were (and are) laws restricting me from doing certain things. It's not the same thing, and it's not what I'm arguing against.

Should we abolish all taxes?

Nope. Which is not analogous, since the government is not forcing me to get a job and earn money if I don't wish to do so.

Should we abolish all laws, because laws by their very nature impinge on your freedom?

Again, restricting me from doing something which infringes on someone else's rights (which is what most laws are--and the ones that aren't, like drug laws, should probably be changed) is not the same as forcing me to do something I don't wish to do for two years of my life.

If you've got an idea to accelerate the world's social evolution to the point where we don't need to defend ourselves from each other, I'd love to hear it.

Totally irrelevent. We have a volunteer military force, and that is exactly as it should be.

I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack, but frankly I see your perspective hypocritical and selfish. One that conveniently takes advantage of others. I'll just leave it at that.

As a member of the US Army I honestly couldn't agree more with Danny on this one. Part of what makes our military the best in the history of man is the fact that we are all volunteers and all want to be in the military. I have seen too many soldiers that just don't belong, and they volunteered. If you have ever served in the military you would know this just as well as I. Some people just don't belong in the military, and with the current system they end up getting weeded out.

If we had compulsory military service this would not be possible, and our ability to defend this great nation would be greatly diminished. We do not need greater numbers to be able to effectively do our job, we just need 100% support from our fellow Americans and a little less hand-on control of the military by politicians.

Thanks for your response, brgiant. I agree that an all voluntary military would produce the best fighting machine. But is that what a democracy wants? Is our fighting machine too good at what it does? Too good because the ones that serve are that slice of America that is least averse to pulling the trigger?

Like you, I'd like America to be great county. But not because of its military power, rather because of the principles it stands for.

I can't agree with you on less control of the military by politicians. This is a democracy and the military serves the people, and the people must be in complete control, even if that makes the military less efficient. If there are politicians that are doing a poor job of representing the people and the needs of the country, then the answer is to through them out, not to through out the civilian control and oversight.

I agree that an all voluntary military would produce the best fighting machine. But is that what a democracy wants? Is our fighting machine too good at what it does? Too good because the ones that serve are that slice of America that is least averse to pulling the trigger?

Like you, I'd like America to be great county. But not because of its military power, rather because of the principles it stands for.

Your best post in days, vas (just my opinion).

Despite my writing "through them out"? :)

when "enemies" start arriving at our doorsteps that would indeed be another story. i think more people would fight for sure. people need a reason to fight. they don't want to be pawns in someones political maneuvering.

No they don't want to be pawns in political maneuvering. When economics dictates the poorest fill the bulk of the ranks they are the only pawns. With a draft far more "ordinary" citizens seek to be informed and demand more than the flimsy WMD nonsense to justify war. Bush has played the ultimate pawn game, now it's time from his supporters on the sidelines to get in the game or call this profiteering, bloodbath for what it is. An ill conceived asset play by a corporate run "Defense"

true enough. but ordinary citizens should already be more informed so it doesn't have to come down to something like this. that is the ideal situation. unfortunately, nowadays no one gives a @!$%# unless their ass is inches from the proverbial sling. i'll call it profiteering for sure. lot's of people stand to gain lots of money because of war. corporations really do run the show. politicians are merely mouth-piece puppets on strings with deep pockets.

I agree with all but one of your points. I don't believe people really don't care so much as they're generally overworked, overtired, bombarded with so much information that choosing a snack requires the reference materials of a Ph. D. TMI, TMI, enough! People try to filter and too many trust their television network anchors and old guard papers to deliver the basics truthfully. If we did not have the internet and aggressive attitude toward finding news, we might not be up the curve.

cjlewis....bring them on"

It does look different saying it while sitting in the box seats wining and dining versus on the field, in the game.

my neighbor who is a 55 year old veteren was called in for Iraq.

My 55-year-old coworker was sent to Iraq for 15 months, and had to make up a disability to get permission to retire after 37 years in the National Guard. His regiment is scheduled for another tour early next year.

You're missing the point. The idea is to require peacetime military service, not just a wartime draft. And yes, if you are benefiting from this country, you should put in your time to defend it. I understand the arguments for an all voluntary military, e.g. let's let those who like to be soldiers be soldiers and those who like to be entrepreneurs be entrepreneurs, but I think the gains far outweigh the costs. We're talking about two years. It would promote more mutual understanding between the military and civilians. All citizens should be responsible for defending the country directly, not via mercenary proxy.

Greg, I don't want anyone to go and believe if those who never have the risk believe they too will bear the cost, all will be saved. It's a question of forcing the Administration hawks to put up or shut up. Nobel cause? Lead us with your own kids or stop asking to take ours. It attacks the hypocrisy and we all know the crowd of Draft Dodgers running the bloodbath are all cut and run experts when it's their own patooties on the line. For proof of that we have history, Bush's AWOL warriors.

All citizens should be responsible for defending the country directly, not via mercenary proxy.

Where to begin? Bush has turned the country into a state of class war. It is everything for the rich, nothing for the poor and middle class. You think a draft would mean we are serving our country? They would have years to use the green conscripts in the most hopeless enterprise this country has ever seen. I'm all for "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.", but we serve best when we learn how to replace belligerency with diplomacy, such as in the Peace Corps or teaching disadvantaged kids. Calling for conscripted military service while the reins of power are in the hands of this dictatorial president is hopelessly romantic or just plain nuts. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Lead us with your own kids or stop asking to take ours.

If you think members of the government are going to not leave loopholes for their kids to be excluded you are mistaken. Look at the tax cut that sends so many millions to the top 1% that the docks in Florida are crowded with 300 foot yachts. They will unabashedly find a way to serve themselves and applaud each other as they do it. The first order of business will be to double the number of soldiers in Iraq. Right now, there are no more to send. What you see as a tactic to expose is really throwing fuel on the fire of neocon adventurism.

I want to see Democrats stand up and call for an end to the conflict. That's why we voted them in and I plan to do everything in my power to win that goal. Rangel's tactic snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. The American people would never vote again like they did in 2006 if the Democrats were responsible for instituting the draft rather than bringing our boys home.

Think about it.

Any, hey, this is the debate I have been conditioned for my whole life, so keep it going if you can find a flaw in my reasoning.

I agree with your sentiments against war, and that society should spend its energy on more constructive things. But you are taking an ideological rather than practical position. Also, some of your statements are fatalistic (e.g. Calling for conscripted military service while the reins of power are in the hands of this dictatorial president is hopelessly romantic or just plain nuts.) — we might as well decide that Democracy doesn't work and throw in the towel. Speaking of hopelessly romantic, are you arguing that we don't need a military? If not, wouldn't it be better to have one made up of the full range of Americans, including those who prefer non-violent means to attain security?

I want to see Democrats stand up and call for an end to the conflict.

You're missing the point. Unless I'm mistaken, what Rangel is pushing and what I support is a peacetime requirement for military service, similar to Germany or Israel. This does not mean we don't end the Iraq War any sooner.

That's why we voted them in and I plan to do everything in my power to win that goal.

We did not elect the Democrats to do one single thing. You're projecting your personal motivation onto all the voters who voted Democrat or sat the election out because they couldn't support the Republicans. You should be careful because such inclinations have striking similarity to our dictatorial president who openly stated he would do everything in his power to win

his

goal, shutting his ears to all other opinion in the process.

As to a continued debate with you... sorry, I'll have to pass. Things like this you learn over time, not in a single Newsvine thread.

Vas,

Rangel obviously hit one of your hotkeys when talking about the draft. You are the one arguing from ideology, my friend. What is lacking in your view (and Rangel's for that matter) is a sense of timing. In the best of all possible worlds, leaders would use war as a last resort and our armed services would be used to defend the nation. However, the current pre-emptive war was launched against a country that did not attack us and did not have WMDs. Cheney said we would be welcomed as liberators and that the oil would pay for the war. He knew he was lying. He wanted to embroil us in a long, drawn out occupation because he knew the oil would become more valuable as it becomes more scarce.

Why call for the draft when the leaders of our country use the military to enrich their corporate clients in the arms and petroleum industries?

If you actually believe the 2006 election was not about the Iraq war and Bush's terrible leadership then take a look at this exit poll analysis from as far right a source as Fox News.

That is my analysis of the situation, and, yes, I do believe that overwhelmingly people voted as they did because 60-70 percent oppose the war. The Democrats had better be seen as ending it or they risk being swept out of office in 2008. That is the concrete situation, like it or not.

I resent your implication that I am blinded by ideology when I am basing my opinion on a concrete analysis of recent history and generally accepted reasons why people voted as they did.

Now for some fun. Here's a song I first heard in 1969 at Woodstock when I was 18. It woke me up and probably saved me a lot of grief. As it turned out my draft number was 129 in 1972 and they only called up to 126 that year. So I know about the draft and unjust wars.

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for.
Don't ask me I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Viet Nam.
Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box!

What do Bush's summer reading list, Talladega Nights, and vas have in common?

They all pump themselves up with images of Albert Camus!

Don't you know smoking causes cancer, you rugged individual, you. And here I thought that picture was of you.

Great Greg, you've proven yourself to be a person who relied on reason and logic to make your points.

Well put.

It seems very much as if the draft is going to be spun as a "good idea" this time around by making it appear as though it is all the Republicans' fault or a way to get back at them.

Just about any proposal can be "justified" as long as its supporters are conveniently hypocritical when needed.

See #4.5 above.

Can you guys point out evidence that Democrats are being hypocritical? Can you link to some specific statements?

I'm generally anti-war, but think mandatory military service is a good idea. For both men and women. There's nothing contradictory about that, if you understood why. If I get the time, I'll write an article about this.

Might I suggest you refrain from taking my statements personally.....especially if its quite evident they do not apply to you.

We all know the outrage over this was deafening when it was dreamed up as a hidden and dastardly Republican plot. A good number of people witnessed it all over the internet......on several occasions.

A Cold Draft
Will Bush bring back the Draft?
Trust That Bush Won't Bring Back the Draft? Bad Idea
Kerry Suggests Draft Could Return with Bush Reelection
Edwards: No military draft if Democrats win

This was all the rage two short years ago. The draft was a terrible idea that feeds the evil Republican lust for conquest. Avoiding the draft was a campaign issue and a reason to vote Democrat.

I guess they're under the impression we've all forgotten or can't do a simple Google search.

Now that the Republicans haven't followed through on what they've been accused of planning, suddenly we're hearing a very different story.

A modest little proposal: Bring back the draft

It seems Democrats are bound and determined to use the draft as a political tool against Republicans one way or another.

Too bad they've brought it all up already....way back before the war.

Bring back the draft!

If ever I've seen consistent flip flopping back and forth over one single issue, this would be the one.

Let's hear it for disappearing line breaks! It appears one must code them manually in between links.

My apologies for the clusterfeck of reference material in the middle of my post.

You haven't really shown me the hypocrisy. You've just provided links showing that some liberals have been critical about the idea of a draft. As to Kerry's comments — I never really liked Kerry and his comments were political. But he does not represent the Democratic party, and if you talk to many Democrats, they feel the same way I do. If you want to point out hypocrisy, you'll need to point to statements made by an individual where he/she was against the draft before (not just against a drafting people for the Iraq War) but pro-draft now.

As I've explained in my other comments in this article, pointing out that the Bush administrations policies will likely require a draft does not mean that you are arguing against a draft, only making it plain that if you are for winning the Iraq War then you had better also accept the idea of a draft to be consistent.

I don't think I ever said the word "hypocrisy" but you should remember how that whole draft rumor spread around during the 2004 election to the point that Bush had to address it again and again. Folks on the left paraded this supposed oncoming draft as if it were some devious scheme of Bush to lead more kids to their deaths in his failing war.
I'm not speaking to how I feel about it, because there might be something to mandatory military service, I'm just thinking this sounds like another one of those political issues where you play either side just to rage against your opponent.

Kerry doesn't represent the entire party, he was just their last choice for President and ran under an anti draft platform.

And I don't have to prove hypocrisy across the board because that is not the statement I made.

You should have a chat with some World War II veterans about your opinion.

The US only abolished the draft in 1973, as a result of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. We talk about the "Greatest Generation" being those who fought in WWI and WWII. There was more a spirit of service and sacrifice back then. Now everyone just wants their MTV. Iraq War, out of sight, out of mind.

We talk about the "Greatest Generation" being those who fought in WWI and WWII.

Actually corporate media glorifies that. Much pitched by top Defense contractor GE-NBC, seller of Nuclear power to Iran and lawbreaking toxic polluter still battling in court to sluff off $10 million PCB cleanup in the Hudson River, ordered by EPA in 1976. We need to be very careful to avoid taking a corporate media agenda and assuming individuals agree.

Granted, Pamela, I'm being an unwitting pawn of corporate media. But the reverse is also true: Just because an idea is latched onto by the corporate media does not make it false.

I'm a bit skeptical of that "Greatest Generation" stuff. It seems to me that they had such a good time in WWII that they wanted their kids to enjoy the same thing, so we got Korea and Vietnam and Grenada and Panama and Somalia. Thank goodness they've finally let go of the reins of power.

The draft is never "fair". Rich people and "senators sons" (as CCR would say) will be able to evade the draft like always. The only difference is that the government will have millions more pawns in their quest for global hegemony.

I find your statement very illogical. I'm positive that the very rich would find ways to avoid a draft, but that does not mean that a draft would have no effect.

If the draft caused "millions more" pawns to be available in their quest for global hegemony, that would imply that someone got drafted, and it's safe to assume that the "millions" which would supposedly be drafted would be from a much broader economic status then is currently the case.

I don't think I support a draft at this time, but oversimplification to the point of thinking in binary is probably not going to help.

Only if the offenders were sufficiently rich and have no heart tugging tales of being downtrodden and underprivileged.

Perhaps the next move for the Democrats should be opening an underground railroad into Canada for their poor, poor voting base who have the moral fiber to conscientiously object to the hardships and brutality of military life.

The Observer...Would Rangel have draft evaders arrested and put in jail?

It would be great if all those who had been opposing the war were automatically conscientious objectors. Not practical, but?

Dwight, this is the best comment on this article so far. Thank you for your wisdom!

Dwight, I was reading this whole long thread, grimacing mostly, wondering if someone would post a reasonable response. It took a while, but here I am, reading my own thoughts.... no need for me to comment at all now. Thanks

I appreciate the positive feedback vas and Jim - I fear that we are in the minority here.