Don't make excuses for Rangel. He really believes what he's saying.

[Guaranteed]

I believe him, too.

He believes that it is the right thing for our country to place the responsibility of defending it in the hands of all of the people, rather than just the poorest. It's not just because it's the morally right thing to do, either. It makes for smarter defense and foreign relations and a no-nonsense military.

He's not simply trying to frame the debate, or manipulate the issue or the Republicans. He's not playing games. He believes it, and he has a legitimate argument to make. It's solid domestic policy.

[BlooInBloo]

1. What you describe is for him the "if they call my bluff, the result is still better" situation....

... The primary goal is to simply clobber the American public over the head with the prospect of THEM going to war.

[Guaranteed]

2. Absolutely. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Huh?

Either he thinks;
a) that there should be a draft because it better promotes national security and social responsibility, or,
b) he thinks that proposing a draft - a head fake, if you will, is an appropriate way to scare voters into fearing for the safety of their own kids and thus increase pressure to end the war. The "hit your constituents with a 2 x 4" approach.

They're mutually exclusive. He believes one or the other. If he believes the former, he's seriously out of touch with public sentiment. If he believes the latter, he's ignorant on the topic of politics. Voters don't reward elected officials who blackmail 'em.

[Guaranteed]

23. He believes it. The above poster- I believe- was using the term "bluff"

loosely, in that, in the end, if the legislation passed Rangel would believe that it would be beneficial to our country.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Sheesh. Here's a red bouncy ball for you to play with. Have fun!

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. What stake, personally, do you have in this debate?

Are you draft age? Kids? Significant other?

Or is your stake limited to a desire to punish the ignorant masses until they see your point?

[Guaranteed]

65. Even if one has no personal stake, don't you think it's important

for the "ignorant masses" to become more involved in these issues, for the good of the country?

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Yes. We only disagree in tactics.

Given the snark I've received from the previous poster, it's apparent that her disagreement with me is more related to my willingness to disagree.

In my opinion, is counterproductive to extort awareness from voters.

[wtmusic]

4. But...but...I've got my yellow car ribbon...I "support the troops"...

I'm just REALLY not cut out to do the fighting thing

[BlooInBloo]

7. :)

[mdmc]

14. thanks for understanding

:kick:

[SquireJons]

26. So, you think it's a good idea for the Dems to clobber the American public?

Right out of the gate? After the American public just put them back in power? If they do, we wont have to worry about majority status for the rest of our lives, and it will be our own damn fault. There's a big difference between being right and being smart.

[BlooInBloo]

32. I'm more concerned - as I take it Rangel is - more with ending this immoral war...

... than I am with the public image of my political party.

Apparently you're not - (shrug) different strokes for different folks I guess.

[SquireJons]

53. You're right

If the Dems don't take the steps necessary to win public support, than the pugs will get back power in two years, just like they did in 2004 with the Senate. Big picture, people, big picture.

We can't end this war tomorrow any how, but there are things that we do in the first 100 days to greatly help the pugs return to power. This is one.

[Kellyiswise]

55. All volunteer military=$40,000 enlistment bonus

If we had a decent minimum wage and opportunity for decent jobs, most of these young kids would not be enlisting or re-uping. It's an economic decision that they are making as opposed to a patriotic decision for most of these kids. As long as we have the great divide between the rich and poor and an economy geared to the rich, there will always be a somewhat "mercenary" military of the have-nots fighting and dying to preserve the wealthy.

[MichiganVote]

3. Its solid bullshit and people won't buy it and they shouldn't

[wtmusic]

6. Of course people won't buy it. They don't want to fight. nt

[MichiganVote]

11. Fight what? Fight who? What is the new rationale for this BS war now?

[wtmusic]

15. There is no rationale

and nothing will make that clearer faster than instituting a no-excuses, no-deferments draft. Tomorrow.

[MichiganVote]

33. Idiotic. As idiotic as all the other reasons for the US to be there.

[wtmusic]

37. How is a draft a "reason to be there"?

:shrug:

[MichiganVote]

49. The purpose of a draft is to be somewhere. Or did you think

we'd institute the draft to teach rich kids a lesson in how to sit on a bunk in the middle of some base.

[wtmusic]

54. Many nations have compulsory military service

Funny, they tend to be very peaceful nations as well.

[MichiganVote]

61. And if you choose to examine those countries you'll fine that the

grunts are usually poor and less literate than the officers.

[JuniperLea]

44. Isn't it better to have a fully-staffed Army, Navy and Marine Corp?

Even in peace-time, we should be fully staffed.

[MichiganVote]

50. Why? Define "fully staffed". Weren't we fully staffed b/f Iraq?

What good did it do to be fully staffed b/f 9/11? Weren't there poor kids joining the military then? What did anyone care then?

[JuniperLea]

56. No, we weren't fully staffed

That's the point.

[MichiganVote]

59. So you're saying the US will only be secure with about 500,000

troops/officers/draftees, regardless of whether there is a bona fide conflict. Fine. Who is going to pay for that?

[JuniperLea]

68. We have always had more troops ready than we have now!!!

Jeez! Get a grip and grab a history book! Check out defense spending prior to BushII!!!

[MichiganVote]

69. So the issue isn't what kind of troops, as in color, size, gender or wealth

its really all about the size of the military and how much we waste on it. Maybe you don't see other needs in this country but some of us do.

[JuniperLea]

71. Get a serious grip! What we're dumping into the military now is far more than usual

What we are wasting on the current military action (not a legal war) is hideous! Of course I see the need at home... why don't you get a grip on yourself and stop responding with emotion and stick with intelligent intercourse??? Egad!!! What we spend on the military in peace time is far lower; it can't even be compared!!! A strong military in peace time is needed for protection at home!!! You want to dump the military altogether? What a god-awfully stupid idea! As soon as you do something like that, guess what happens next? Any dumbass little country in the world can take us over... think a bit.

Background of Selective Service
(Source: Selective Service System - June 25, 2001 revision)

For more than 50 years, Selective Service and the registration requirement for America's young men have served as a backup system to provide manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces.

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 which created the country's first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent Federal agency.

From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis.

The obligation of a man to register is imposed by the Military Selective Service Act. The Act establishes and governs the operations of the Selective Service System.

(Source: Selective Service System - June 25, 2001 revision)

[MichiganVote]

74. That's funny...I feel completely unemotional. Nice try tho'.

And for the record....I lived the 1970's, I'm aware of the history and of the current requirements for registration.

End the military? Gee, I don't recall endorsing that in my posts but now that you mention it, let's do it. Let's cut and run from all of it. It's all over now anyway, we just promise to shock and awe the bad guys. We should be able to get a few decades off duping the world that we still have the military might and the WMD's. Afterall, Hussein duped us all through the 90's. So what's the problem?

You're a genius! Call Rangel, tell him he should seriously consider a bill to dismantle the entire military....in secret.

[mdmc]

sounds like someone with something to lose

No one wants their kids to die in a war. Today you can buy your kids safety; what protects the poor?

[MichiganVote]

36. On the contrary. When this Congress allowed * to ram this war thru

they did want someone's kid to die. If you're inferring that I have a kid I can buy off, you're mistaken.

[mdmc]

51. nah, I was thinkin that you, like me, would be absolved from the draft

I know I could buy my way out. Couldn't you?

It is no big deal. At least you and I always opposed the war - some super shits supported the war, and are now balking. They suck as much as the stay the coursers.

Anyway, peace and low stress

[MichiganVote]

62. Actually, I'd rather go myself than some 19 year old. I've had the chance

to live life. I've known many people, been many things and visited many places. It wouldn't kill me to die in the place of some kid. And I really wouldn't care whether that kid's family was rich or not. Everyone deserves to live some part of life.

Take it easy.

[mdmc]

17. sounds like someone with something to lose

No one wants their kids to die in a war. Today you can buy your kids safety; what protects the poor?

[Jon8503]

22. The only ones who don't buy it are the ones who don't want to believe

it and are against the draft. Why would they be against a draft that would provide equal representation in our military to fight a war that it seems the ones who are against a draft are for a war.

[MichiganVote]

38. Different issues. Class issues are not solved with a draft. Wars are not ended with it either.

[cali]

5. Then how come he vote against this very legislation

the last time he introduced it?

BTW, I love Rangel. I think using the draft as a rhetorical device is a fine idea as it gets everyone focused on the war and the cost in blood of military adventurism.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Sigh.

[cali]

13. Want to explain your condescending and lazy little sigh? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

19. The answer to your question was in this thread before you asked....

.... indicating that, despite your words, you're not actually terribly interested in an answer to the question.

[cali]

34. Did it ever occur

to you that I haven't read the entire thread, and ergo did not see said post? Leaping to a conclusion that I'm not interested in the answer to the question I posed, is a failure to think outside your own perceptions.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Dupe - my bad.

[BlooInBloo]

40. LOL! Excellent spin-attempt! clapclapclap! Um, the thread was only 4 posts long at the time.

Hence what I said.

Genius effort on your part to spin *4 posts* with the words "entire thread" - that was inspired!

[Guaranteed]

10. Well, he sure was making a convincing argument when I just

saw him with Tucker on MSNBC.

[H2O Man]

24. He explained

that he didn't vote against his bill. He voted against the process that did not allow his bill the consideration he felt it deserved.

[Jon8503]

25. He explained why he voted against it on CNN today. It is what the republicans did

somehow to the bill, bringing it up too early or added something to it. Did not hear the entire explanation.

[Annces]

9. Ya - remember when he defended Bush again Hugo Chavez comments

He was very pro macho then and acting like he could speak for the American people.

[mdmc]

12. We wouldn't be at war right now if Chelsea and the twins had to fight

trust me... The BFEE and the Clintonista's would have found a diplomatic solution.

As long as those in power are free to exploit the poor, war will continue.


ps- thanks for the OP.

[MoonRiver]

16. He's WRONG then.

Reinstating the draft would definitely send us into civil war. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that.

[mdmc]

21. I think that it will convince people of "NOT MY KIDS"

well then, who's kids? Why not mine? We need to make war the last possible resort. My kids will always proudly go, then.

[wtmusic]

42. Had the twins been serving you can bet war WOULD have been

a last resort.

[Guaranteed]

28. ....Civil war?

What?

[SquireJons]

18. True, but it's really bad policy

First, the country is sick and tired of war, and very few people will see this as an effort to make war less likely. My guess is that 80% - 90% of the country will reject this idea the moment they hear it. So, the first thing the Dems do is something that 90% of the public will reject. Remember the old adage about first impressions? This is a really bad move. And I like Rangel. I've seen him speak several times on The News Hour and other shows. He is very articulate and doesn't take crap from either the pugnacious pugs or the the talking heads on the shout fests.

Aside from the effect it will have on public perception of the Democratic Party, his proposal is full of holes. He suggests that all young men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 should be required to serve their country. If they don't want to serve in the military, they can serve in schools or hospitals etc. He says that the rich will think twice about supporting a war that might get "their kind" killed.

But if there is an option for not serving in the military, than what is to stop the W's of this country from opting out of military service in time of war? That is what almost all of them will do, so it won't have any effect what so ever. If the option to not serve in the military is removed, than the chances of having to fight (and kill or die) in a war that one thinks is wrong is really high. Plus, with such a large army, there will be increased pressure to use it.

This is really bad legislation, despite the intention of its sponsor. If there is a draft when my son reaches 18, we will move to another country. It's that simple.

[wtmusic]

27. I believe in his 2003 legislation that schools and hospitals

were optional under very restricted circumstances. I might be wrong.

We already have a "back door" draft which is extremely unfair to our current military. I disagree with your idea that it would make war more likely. Many peaceful nations have had a compulsory draft since their inception.

[SquireJons]

60. Yeah, peaceful nations like...

Israel, China, and Russia. What great company.

Seriously, can't you just here the hawks now, saying "We spend hundreds billions of dollars a year for our 20 million member army, and yet we are afraid to put it in the field against the evil ______________ ? (fill in the blank)

[greenbriar]

29. here

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

[autorock]

30. Yes he does believe it

And that's the problem.

Unfortunately, resorting to fascist policies is not going to do any good for anyone.

[aquart]

35. Yes, it is.

It's the difference between a citizen's republic and an empire.

[Guaranteed]

41. Right the fuck on.

That's exactly what it is.

[wtmusic]

46. Not to mention

we are overstretched and in a crappy state of preparedness, were something truly unexpected to happen.

[JuniperLea]

43. The USA is backward in many ways

Most countries have programs like this.

Although I agree, the flip-side is it takes jobs from the poor... sad statement for sure, but if you think about it...

[autorock]

45. Is this a joke?

"It makes for smarter defense and foreign relations and a no-nonsense military."

One of the reasons why we lost Vietnam was because our army was not a professional fighting force, it was comprised of conscripted kids and people who did not want to fight.

To have a strong military and "smarter defense" you need to have an army that is made up of people who signed up for service under their own will.

Even better, you need smart people running the military, not a bunch of fucking yahoos like the Bush cabinet.

[Guaranteed]

47. Talk to Vietnam draftees, ask them what they thought about the "pros."

Ask them whether the pros or the drafted are more likely to actually want to FINISH a war.

[autorock]

48. Finish or win?

There's quite a difference. You don't go to war to simply finish it (which can mean anything from retreat to victory) in a few years, you go to war to win it.

Theoretically, anyway.

[Guaranteed]

52. Winning is the surest way to go home.

Winning isn't the first thing on a person's mind when they actually enjoy shooting people.

[autorock]

57. But...

Rangel's belief is that the poor join up for the financial benefits, or because they're unqualified for anything else. I doubt that the majority of them enjoy shooting people.

[Guaranteed]

58. You're right about that. So, that's basically what you've got-

poor people, and the people who like shooting people.

Our military needs more diversity than that.

[magellan]

63. This is the debate we never had

I completely agree with Rangel and only wish his proposal had gained media attention sooner.

We've destroyed a country that was never a threat to us because of blind allegiance to ideology instead of reason. It's time for Bush**'s war boosters to consider that supporting a war isn't like supporting a sports team. This isn't a fucking game you get to experience from the safety of your living room. If it's important enough to fight then it's important enough to draft.

The alternative is to engage your brain and ask yourself if you'd be willing to sacrifice your life or the lives of your loved ones before you go gung-ho for a war your government wants to start.

[Zhade]

67. Forcing more fodder to fight an illegal war isn't 'tough on defense'.

It's madness.

[Redstone]

70. Balls. When we had a draft before, the rich kids and sons of politicians got out

of it.

Was he alive back then, and if he was, did he take his head out of his ass long enough to see what was happening?

Redstone

[JVS]

72. Rangel has been in congress since 1971

I wonder what he thought of the draft then

[Redstone]

73. That would be some interesting research to do. Wish I had the time.

I hope your post spurs somebody who does have the time to go back and look. I bet it would be interesting.

Redstone