Bill Moyers Calls for Draft if Obama Escalates in Afghanistan

[kpete]

Run time: 04:31 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYOcgcO2xK0   Posted on YouTube: October 30, 2009 By YouTube Member: PBS Views on YouTube: 8471   Posted on DU: November 01, 2009 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 3395

 

[timzi]

1. Bill Moyers Is The Best Journalist We Have

[nyc 4 Biden]

28. +1. He is a national treasure.

BMJ is my favorite tv program.

[Warpy]

2. Moyers is WRONG

The draft has never made a war unpopular by itself. Parents of potential draftees weren't against Vietnam until the early 70s, when it was clear to everyone but Nixon that the war had been lost.

If anything, having Junior get drafted and be part of the effort makes a war more popular.

This is a stupid idea that needs a stake driven through its raisin of a heart forever.

Remember, not having the ability to draft a huge supply of meat is what kept Cheney's ambitions in check over the last 8 years.

No draft. Not now. Not unless this country is physically attacked.

[timzi]

3. Your Pen-Name Is So Appropriate.......

[ooglymoogly]

16. I would not cross swords with Bill Moyers...

especially with a dull rapier.

[elleng]

24. Warpy, the OLD draft had so many holes

few who really didn't want to serve were in jeopardy, imo. No comparison with Vietnam if new draft didn't have exemptions.

[Warpy]

32. The new one will, too

because you can bet Congress will write in as many sweetheart exemptions for fat cats as they have into the tax code.

Even if we got a 100% draft, no exceptions, do you honestly think any rich man would risk having a son in this country during prime draft age years? Those boys would all be pursuing higher education outside the country until they were too damn old to be sucked into the military.

Any draft is inherently corrupt, preserving the concept of the rich man's war and the poor man's involuntary fight.

It's nice to dream and perhaps the dreamers will get their way when those of us who remember how terrible it was in practice are dead and gone.

And then the dreamers can deal with another madman like Cheney getting access to all their children to murder in corporate wars.

[elleng]

34. I agree 100% that the likelihood of CLEAN draft is nil.

Unfortunately the likelihood of a clean ANY legislation is also nil.

[Voice for Peace]

36. the advantage of a draft is it gets young people involved in resisting war.

[northzax]

52. not if they are in the military they aren't

the only way a draft is fair is if it is universal. you have one week from your 18th birthday or your high school graduation, whichever comes second (as long as your graduation is within one year of your 18th birthday) to present yourself at a recruiting station for your assignment . Failure to do so will lead to an immediate (ok, I will give you two weeks to allow for paperwork issues) your options are: accept the assignment given you or incarceration in a Federal Penitentiary for the duration of the draft (not for the duration of what your service would be) there are no exceptions. failure to report for assignment leads to an immediate forfeiture of your US citizenship (and therefore right to stay in the United States, or travel to the United States) you become an illegal immigrant, subject to deportation and indefinite incarceration (until a country can be found to take you) that is how I would design the draft.

and frankly, creating public policy that is going to get people killed to make a point is just plain stupid.

[bobbolink]

79. That's it exactly. How many times I've been flamed at DU for saying exactly this.

It is the only way... and many other countries do exactly this... including Switzerland.

Do you know if there is any movement working toward this?

Thank you for getting right to the heart of the matter!

[northzax]

88. No, in fact I think it would be a terrible policy

But then, I think forced military service is a bad plan, outside of serious neccesity (see WWII) But if you decide to do it, this is the only fair way.

[bobbolink]

97. Getting young people to THINK abour our war policy isn't terrible,

and neither is demanding service from a selfish segment of that population.

Our country would gain tremendously.

[northzax]

101. Perhaps

But demanding service at the point of a gun (in this case quite literally) isn't service, it's compulsion. And why compell military service then? Why not compell two years of medical school? (there are more health care workers in the US than soldiers, after all) why pick one profession (killing people and learning to follow orders) instead of another, say law? Or medicine? Or engineering? What's so special about the military? I mean besides the inflated chances of getting shot? (full disclosure: I have not been in the military, my service was two years in americorps, Teach For America to be exact. No one in my family has worn a uniform since WWII, although my parents' generation have 8 Peace Corps tours between them. On the other hand, my girlfriend works for the Army as a civilian and her father wear more than one star on his shoulder, so I've known both sides.) but what's so special about compulsory military service that people are so high on? If you want to be in the military, join up. If you want to be something else, do that. But don't force me, or anyone else, to be subject to military discipline unless they want to. Unless you think there's something particularly special about the military as opposed to other forms of service.

[bobbolink]

104. What's special? Doctors and teachers don't declare war, do they?

It really is quite simple....... war is the responsibility of us all. If ALL young people know they will be called on, they are much less likely to think that war is fine. You DO know that is the reasoning, don't you?

Or do you think that it SHOULD be up to poor kids who have no other options?

[Junket]

80. The draft to enlist war resisters? Ridiculous!

I would never support the prospect of sending my child to war just so a few cynically foolish people can believe they will boost war resistance by forcing families to send their kids to kill and die.

[swilton]

44. People in Congress and others

like our former vice president will always be able to get exemptions. The belief that implementing the draft somehow equalizes the burden of casualties on all Americanss is total myth.

[tucsonlib]

85. I Was Drafted In 1970

I, along with tens of thousands of other young men, refused induction. Point is, if there were a draft, you or your children could always simply refuse to comply with the law. Thanks in large part to the draft resisters, deserters, active military and war veterans who participated in the anti-war movement, the tide of public opinion was turned against the Vietnam war. This could never have happened with an all-volunteer army.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. I agree. If they want to escalate Vietghanistan, let them reinstitute the draft

No longer being an all-volunteer military force may make some people think twice for a change.

[Junket]

81. Only if you and your family go as part of the deal

Those who support the draft should be the first to be drafted.

[SF342]

5. I will see your draft....

and raise you a 'mandatory military service.'

I have been of the opinion if you mandate military service,the population will be more hesitant to wage war.

Secondly it would infuse a different mentality into the military.

You would never see the military sign on to mandatory service.

[disndat]

41. Bush/Cheney had two evil purposes

for not implementing a draft for the Iraq war, one was to prevent a 'Vietnam' protest and the other was to
make a lot of money, at taxpayers expense, to give huge contracts, KBR, Halliburton, and others, for a private army.

[ZombieHorde]

6. Reducing civil rights is not something I can support, but Moyers' call for reduced civil rights is

noted. Bill Moyers wishes to reduce civil rights in the U.S.

[whathehell]

38. Bullshit. The draft WOULD engage more young people AND their midle class parents to resist it.

Why do you imagine the "no draft" system was established in the first place..and yeah, I lived through Vietnam..all of it.

[ZombieHorde]

48. The draft is a civil rights issue. People should have the right to not kill other people.

If we draft someone, we are saying, "Go kill or we will hurt you." Do you disagree?

[AlbertCat]

56. The draft is a civil rights issue.

"Go kill or we will hurt you." Do you disagree?


As a matter of fact, yes. There are many many other jobs in the military besides killing people.... or there used to be before KBR.

I suppose you think taxes are a civil rights issue. Or driving on the right side of the road.


I don't mind the Government demanding its citizens do some kind of civil service, but just a draft is not a very good solution. That I will agree with. But does that make it a "civil rights" issue?

[ZombieHorde]

58. Your use of taxes and driving are logical fallacies called red herring.

I agree there are some non-killing positions in the military, but many people who would be drafted would be placed into a position to kill people.

I believe people have a right to not kill other people. A draft would be in opposition to these rights for many people.

[whathehell]

66. We already have that....It's called Conscientious Objector status.

[ZombieHorde]

86. Even if the process was trustworthy, why force people to go through this process?

Our government should not be toying with people's lives in order to make a completely worthless gesture.

[whathehell]

91. For all the reasons stated

by me and others throughout this thread. I see no reason to re-state them.

[ZombieHorde]

92. There is no evidence the claims in this tread will come to pass. nt

[whathehell]

94. I didn't claim

there was "evidence"...You didn't ask for evidence. You asked for a reason and I pointed out that they were all over the thread.

Now, excuse me Zombie, but I've got things to do.

[ZombieHorde]

102. I did not claim you claimed evidence existed. My point, which I obviously failed to make, is there

is no evidence, so the draft is a bad idea. We know the draft will have a negative affect, but we don't know if the draft would end the war or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. For many reasons.

Not the least of which was, we discovered non-volunteer conscripts don't make very good soliders, if they don't want to be there, and aren't very willing to fight.

All those reasons aside, you seem to be encouraging the draft, for the purpose of getting people to resist it. While the latter is a laudable goal, in the meantime, the former makes these people government property until said government relents..

[AlbertCat]

57. we discovered non-volunteer conscripts don't make very good soliders

Am I to believe those volunteers did it because they wanted to be good soldiers, or to get their education paid for or better job opportunities? (after they get out)

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Better ratios.

In Vietnam, I think the ratio of support to frontline soldier was about 10:1. Today, the ratio is better, and with an all-volunteer army, you can better fill that front rank with people who actually want to, or at the very least, are very willing to fight. Scoop up the general population, and you'll be filling that front rank with people who want nothing to do with the war at all. That can get people killed.


A volunteer army is better, in all respects. It's up to US to put pressure on to make sure that army isn't used when not needed. A draft isn't going to help. Not for years, anyway.

[whathehell]

67. Yes, I am encouraging it for that reason.....

and in this instance, I do think that the end justifies the means.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. I don't think it would, ultimately.

Look at how long it took to get Vietnam un-done. And frankly, the lesson wasn't learned. It wasn't even learned in Iraq, with the 'hey my son/daughter is over there, now we HAVE to win' attitudes.

I don't think a draft would have the effect you are envisioning. It didn't last time.

[whathehell]

72. Actually, I think the lesson WAS learned...for a long time...

Do you remember how, for years the conservatives would complain about "the Vietnam Syndrome" -- The reluctance to go to war?

We were basically at peace for about sixteen lovely years before Gulf I came along, and that was mostly an air war and didn't last long.

As for Iraq, the "my son/daughter is over there" thing didn't win, because, by and large, "my" sons and daughters were NOT over there...Something like only one percent of families were/are involved.

And yes, it DID take a long time for us to get out of Vietnam, but I think that was a one-time deal..Nowadays, people would have the example of 'Nam to look back to and they would shut it down fast. That's my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Your proposed solution might work.

It's sort of a gamble though. Public perception can be tinkered with. Look at the Iraq war. Going in, public opinion was for it, and even our own senators were voting in favor. Drum up enough support, and you'll see WWII levels of enthusiasm.

For an extremely unpopular war, I think the draft would work to end it. But I am not convinced it would make an otherwise 'popular' or high-public-support war, unpopular.


Afghanistan has long been framed as 'the good war', even by our own party.

[whathehell]

78. Yes, but despite the framing, I believe it's becoming unpopular.

Thank you, by the way, for conversing civilly with me...Some people here seem to be new and ignorant of the rules regarding personal attacks.

[Junket]

69. Foolish notion.

I would never let such idiocy force my child to be shipped off to some future war. Your conclusions about the draft are wrong and absolutely will not stand.

[whathehell]

71. Oh really?...

Do you or "your child" possess some special privilige, or power would that would allow for ducking the danger that others cannot?

Because, guess what?..If you don't and the draft becomes law, your options will be few if not just two: Cop to CO Status or leave the country.

BTW, Simply stating that something is "wrong" -- however huffily -- does not exactly qualify as substantive debate.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[whathehell]

76. I hope you enjoy your time here, Junket...because it may be

brief.

Read the Rules, dear...We don't allow for your type of personal attacks.

[Junket]

82. What personal attack?

I merely took what you said about me and turned it around. If my post a "personal attack" then so is yours.

Sounds to me like somebody doesn't like being contradicted. Now will this post be removed too? My guess is yes.

Besides, nothing can really stop me from posting here so I wouldn't count on anything being brief.

[whathehell]

84. No, dear...You went further than that..

You attacked me with crude language...Telling someone to "stick it up your ass" is a "no no" here...Again, read the rules.

You think that "nothing can really stop" you from posting here?..That's funny.

As everyone here (but you?)knows, you CAN be banned permanently from this site -- and many have been -- for frequent or egregious violations of the DU rules..It's called "tombstoning".

Hint: Those with thin skins and/or a penchant for lashing out don't last here...So, good luck with that -- I have a feeling you will need it.

[Junket]

95. Nah.

I can't be banned from creating new users using different emails from other computers. You don't know how it works, your "tombstoning" cannot stop that. Nobody can truly be banned for good. I am a human being and not my user name. Wow, imagine that.

And true enough I did say that, which was a direct response to your impugning my family, which I reserve the right to defend regardless of how "crude" you think it is, "dear". And me with the thin skin? Those who live in glass houses, oh offended one.

[whathehell]

99. Yah.

No, it's you who doesn't know "how it works"...You're comment was not deleted by me, it was deleted by the moderators.

In the meantime, I'm sure the administrators will be happy to hear about your plans to "game" the system...Keep talking

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Junket]

83. Yes really

Having my comments removed won't stop me from speaking out against such foolish ideas. And re-instituting the draft in the hope of causing a surge in war resistance is foolish if it is anything. This is holding a gun to the head of every American with children, and I wouldn't even support doing that if the draft was for Republicans only!

How about any bill that re-institutes the draft has a clause that anyone who supported the bill, and their families, are the first ones to be drafted? That would be the only way to give such a bad idea any sense of justice.

[whathehell]

100. ....

You can "speak out" in a civil way here or get deleted...But being a quick learner, I'm guessing you've figured that out by now.

[nightrain]

7. knr. as long as the privileged don't have to send their kids to war, they are

immune from its impact. Let Congress vote on escalation and then invite their kids and grandkids to show their support by being the first in line. Perhaps after the carnage hits home they'll consider just how painful it is to destroy/maim human life.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. The privileged aren't going to send their kids anyway

and it would take years before this is un-done. It's an endurance issue. Look at how long, and how many lives Vietnam claimed before it was ended. And this is generally perceived as 'the good war', even reinforced by rhetoric from Obama himself.

A draft is a terrible idea. Remember in Feb when Obama sent two more bridages to Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that he's wavering or ready to pull out?

"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said in a speech on Aug. 1, 2007. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

"This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said.



He's not going anywhere. Hell, worst case scenario, we institute a draft, everyone gets all up in arms about it, and Obama himself takes all the blame.

[trungpa ricochet]

8. Moyers is right and Obama is wrong

Robert Kennedy wanted all draft deferments to be eliminated. He said that college deferments and "Dick Cheney" excuses protected a certain class of men, while other classes did the fighting and dying. Now the economy is so bad that all service branches have exceeded their quotas. The military-industrial complex needs more grist for the mill. Suddenly turning all the grist over to the Pentagon will stop the passive acceptance of all this endless militarism, which is also ruining our country by driving it into permanent bankruptcy.

The only people who can dispose of the Taliban are the Afghan people themselves. As noble as Obama thinks his cause is, he cannot win against an insurgency that is fighting a foreign occupation. Yes, the Taliban are brutal and ignorant, but it is for the Afghanis to defeat them. No one else can do it.

[ChiciB1]

9. I'm With Bill... He's One Of the Best... Only One Small Problem Here...

People are now JOINING up because they can't find a job!! My niece just did again after having left the Army sometime back! The re-up money was too good to turn down!

And as one who married my husband to "keep" him from getting drafted, I know that it will scare the crap out of many, many kids and the parents will "go ballistic!"

Call up the draft... it could make some people think twice, or one would think!!!!

[springhill]

14. Oh Just Great...........

My son just turned 18, and the thought of him being killed in Afghanistan to make a point and stop the war does not sit too well with me. Really, I would rather leave the country than have him go fight in this sham of a war.

[pleah]

15. +1

[onlyadream]

33. I'm with you

I saw Bill M. last night and was horrified when he said the word. My son is 10, but time goes quick and wars in the Middle East don't end. I'd rather my son go to jail.

[silenttigersong]

10. So true...

People will march on Washington, and burn their draft cards just like Nam....chaos will erupt,the rich will be buying out their children's obligations,same story.

[theFrankFactor]

11. With This Lazy, Stupid, Disengaged Citizenry it Would be a Wake Up Alarm

Do it!

[Ishoutandscream2]

29. Yes, Americans would (hopefully) get off their lazy asses

Moyers makes good points. Let the privileged serve in the sacrifice. And I don't say this lightly; I have a son getting close to that magic age of 18.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[ChiciB1]

65. I NEVER Say DRAFT Lightly... I Have A 20 Year Old Grandson... BUT

he IS attending FSU, still I was part of the generation who got MOTIVATED because of the DRAFT!

I surely don't think it would take as long to STOP WAR this time around given what went on back then! It DID take massive demonstrations and protests, AND a long time, while more than 55,000 of our died! I don't think I ever got a clear number of how many Vietnamese people died! Far, far too many and far, far too many innocents too!

Other countries have tried to rescue Afghanistan in the past and have failed! Even Charlie Wilson thinks we should STAY OUT, and he was a major factor in giving them help way back when against Russia! When do people learn a lesson??

I'd bet if you say DRAFT things would get hot and heavy very quickly and many would back down much quicker than in the 60's & 70's!

[phasma ex machina]

12. +1 to both Moyers and Rangel calling for the government to bring back the draft.

Far too many kids are on their 5th and 6th rotation into hell.

[sui generis]

31. FUCK THE DRAFT

and everyone who supports it.

Absolutely anathema to me, in the 21st century. We are not owned by virtue of geography and birth. It is not a privilege to be U.S. citizen, it is a privilege to the U.S. to have us as citizens.

Maybe if we start thinking about this in terms that don't remove the rights of random people to be forced to "serve" and stop playing lame brained politics (it's not brilliant politics, at all), we could grow up and only spend the military we have, instead of making it bigger, involuntarily.

Volunteer or don't. That's what we have to spend and not a human more.

Bring it bitches, I'll take you all on.

[theFrankFactor]

40. Let Us KNow How That Works Out For Ya

[sui generis]

43. oh is that the royal "us"?

lame.

I will indeed let you know how "it" works out; I'm a red blooded American and so far you're the only one whose accepted my invite to this party.

I take that as a sign of consensus among "us", with the exception of you.

[AlbertCat]

59. It is not a privilege to be U.S. citizen, it is a privilege to the U.S. to have us as citizens.

Having Teabaggers and people like evangelicals is no privilege, that's for sure. Where you are born is a complete accident of time and place. You ARE privileged to live here instead of Saudi Arabia. You are also free to move to Djabouti.....a right our Government grants you that many other counties do not.Your arguments might have some merit in a world without borders, which is a nice thought, but far from reality.

[sui generis]

64. We make our own reality.

Yes, there are people who are more or less fortunate than others due to accidents of birth, but if I thought being an american was shameful I would not be an American in spirit or on paper.

Our ancestors, even some recent ones came here because there was opportunity; because at some point even without a "world without borders" America valued a population of farmers and tradesmen enough to welcome those people from other countries. Now other countries value technology, scientific achievement and sometimes just a nice bankroll (Canada is one example who spells it out).

America or any other government may keep us here by force of arms, but then it becomes an armed struggle between the government and a burgeoning "insurgency". You cannot expect adherence to the law if the the law is applied unequally or made meaningless, and you certainly cannot expect a calm civil governance if you are oppressing people by force of tyranny.

Government grants me what I consent government to be. If it doesn't suit me in a democracy, you are correct I would find greener pastures, or else become lawless.

Today, my "privilege" is paid for in taxes. Period. I volunteer without hesitation, but the second my participation in protecting our ECONOMIC interests is demanded in the form of military service, there are certainly better countries to go to and to get by in.

I'm a spirited realist, not at all an idealist, by the way. I think idealists make great fatalists when all is said and done.

[bluestateboomer]

13. As a former Draftee....

I agree with Moyers. Our "professional" armed forces has never been more divided from the rest of the country they serve. The numbers of volunteers is so small most duties the military used to perform are contracted out. Most of the country doesn't have a connection to the wars.

I do not believe we should be fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but if the majority of the country believes differently, the majority of citizens should be committed prosecuting those wars. There should be no exceptions for wealth or family status. The burden cannot only be borne by the underprivileged.

I came back from Viet Nam and participated in the protests and student boycotts of the 70's. Our protests eventually brought the war to an end. I wouldn't want my child put in harms way to support stupid political decisions, but we have to bring the reality of our militaristic imperialism home. A draft would do that.

Or..... We could just stop the wars now, bring the troops home and spend our resources on improving the lives of the people at home.

NAAAAAHHH.... It'd never work.

[ooglymoogly]

17. +1 nt

[ooglymoogly]

18. self delete, wrong place

[rtassi]

23. That was eloquently stated ... Thank you! n/t

[bobshin]

46. Bbbuttt.. our resources are our military industrial complex...

without warthingies what other exportable business would the US have?

[Junket]

75. the majority does not believe differently

That is what is so foolish about this notion. The majority is already against the wars and do not need a draft to change their mind. We no longer live in the Vietnam era and our political class is not be affected the same way by popular opinion. That is the truth!

The idea of reinstating the draft is the quite cynical idea, and quite deadly, of forcing the nation's citizens, except the rich and well-connected, to sacrifice their families so that their survivors might (might!) get behind your political view.

I would not sacrifice my own family for that, and even though I am no violent man to suggest that I should is frankly what is called in the vernacular fighting words.

[ooglymoogly]

19. Kr +1 for understanding reality. nt

[namvet73]

20. Let Joe Liebermumbles be the first to go! -n/t-

[SoDesuKa]

21. That's a Terrible Idea

Conscripting citizens to fight discretionary wars is a terrible idea. I can't imagine it being supported by anyone who is likely to be affected by it. As to the rest of you, go ahead and volunteer.

[axollot]

60. Majority of Americans want the wars to end. Seems to me Moyers is..

..stating, bringing back the draft will wake up the rest of the country. Thus the animated anology in the begining. Obviously, I'd much rather bring the troops home, I bet Mr Moyers would too.

[rtassi]

22. Reminds me of an old Star Trek episode "A taste of Armageddon"

I'm not sure bringing back the draft as Moyer's suggests is actually a serious consideration on his part, but rather an effort to get us to consider how without the horror of war confronting us personally, we seem to be willing to send our young to die ... knowing deep in our hearts that there is no honor in it, no moral purpose, and no real reason to affect pride in their participation. Each side keeps sending their young to become killers ... with no tangible goal that advances humanity, as if war, any war, ever could ...

[niceypoo]

25. Can you say, 'Neo Counter Culture?'

...which is exactly what we would end up with.

"Well, it's 1-2-3 what are we fightin' for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop Afghanistan"

[rtassi]

26. Donovan's "Universal Soldier" also comes to mind n/t

[namvet73]

27. My take on it is that Moyers.....

is basically saying "shit or get off the pot" with the realization that it's a hypothetical situation. Hypothetical in that the privileged will have to serve.
In the real world, I think it's easy to conclude that if the draft were re-instated, the wealthy/privileged will find a way to avoid it. They seem to avoid everything
including paying taxes they are SUPPOSED to be paying in addition to taxes that Bush gave them a break on.

I do think that making the rich pay more of their fair share of taxes is another way to make them SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.

[axollot]

63. That's how I took his essay to mean. Thanks! n/t

[Brigid]

30. One question:

Was Moyers also calling to bring back the draft back when the idiot who got us into this mess to begin with was in office?

[Postman]

35. Draft Republicans first....

[earcandle]

37. Great Point. Thanks for the support you give the American people by standing for truth!

[guyton]

42. draft girls too

As the parent of a boy and a girl, I couldn't help but be struck speechless at the poster
up in our post office ... requiring draft registration of boys, but not girls.

I don't want my daughter drafted, but neither to do I want my son drafted!

[bobshin]

45. Too bad, I'm an out gay. Darn.

On the other hand, a sudden surge in the gay population wouldn't be a bad thing

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

47. I am Very opposed

to war, to killing, to a Draft, and the notion that reinstating the Draft will solve Anything.

[man4allcats]

51. A 35 year old Republican I work with

recently brought up Afghanistan and how we "need more boots on the ground" there. I suggested to him that if he were really serious about that, he might want to ask his Congress person to support the reintroduction and passage of Charlie Rangel's Universal National Service Act of 2006 (link may take a few seconds to load). Among other things, that bill proposes an age range for induction from 18 to 42 years of age. Interestingly, he didn't have much to say on the topic after I pointed that out.

On edit: I forgot to mention that the U.S. born citizen and Republican voter referred to here has never served in the armed forces.

[bobbolink]

98. I fully supported that in 2006, and still do.

This would make this a much better nation.

It has certainly worked well in Switzerland.

Thank you for posting this!

[sui generis]

53. a military DRAFT should not be a political football

We forget in our rush to be clever that there are better ways to make a point. The real problem for me is that Rangel is more than half serious - and philosophically I don't believe we owe our country anything beyond the taxes we already pay.

A military draft is like a credit card, using human lives instead of dollars. If you want people in the military then make the military an attractive place to be.

Either you believe in self-determination or you aren't really a liberal or a progressive. How is it that a piece of geography with an administrative body called "government" believes in freedom on one hand and the legal compulsion to military service, on the other hand.

You can't have it both ways - either you have a volunteer military or you don't bother too much about those pesky "freedoms". If you're spending more human capital on a voluntary war than you have to spend, then stop volunteering other people to fight it in the form of a draft proposal.

I am disgusted.

[SandWalker1984]

54. Cheney, Rush, Clinton - ALL of them avoided being drafted

Reality is that those with the power and wealth will make sure their children do not fight in wars.

During Viet Nam, my community, a farming community, lost several young men to that military action, and for what? Yet Cheney received, I think I've read, 6 deferments. Clinton went to England to study. Shrub Bush got his daddy to pull strings to get him into the National Guard and he spent his service time getting drunk as often as he could.

Wars are never fought by those that cause them.


Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket." Butler was a much decorated general that said wars are fought to make rich people richer. He also stated that the US should only fight wars for 2 reasons - (1) to defend our homes from an invasion or (2) to protect the Bill of Rights.

Afghanistan and Iraq fit neither of these 2 reasons.

[AlbertCat]

55. Before we start drafting people....

.... how about reimplementing that thing about ONLY Congress can declare war.....and it must be so before we send troops in.

[Fearless]

62. It's a means to get people to care about ending the war...

If there was a draft 7 years ago we'd be finished with this by now. I remember a few Democratic Congressmen suggesting a bill in 2004/5ish that would necessitate a draft to continue the war. Same deal.

[ZombieHorde]

87. There is no evidence for your claim. nt

[Fearless]

89. I was unaware that evidence had to be offered for an opinion...

[ZombieHorde]

93. Evidence was offered for the existence of the opinion, so this is not what I was referring too.

I wanted evidence the draft would help end the war, which is a claim.

[Fearless]

96. Generally speaking...

It would turn public opinion of the war against it's continuation because the average American doesn't want to have to go to war. While they can dismiss a war happening if they're not affected, if the average person is suddenly affected by Afghanistan, expect to see Vietnam level protest, if not more as grassroots organizing today has the potential to be far more efficient (re: the internet).

[ZombieHorde]

103. Why would the government listen to us? We (DUers) are mostly against the war, yet we still voted for

Obama, who is for the war. I am probably going to vote for Obama again even if we are still at war. Are you?

if the average person is suddenly affected by Afghanistan

If one of my loved ones died because they were drafted into the war, I would consider the pro-draft people to be the most responsible for his or her death.

[Fearless]

105. Because regardless of what we've said in our little enclave...

The majority of the American people have not proven that they will put their money where their mouth is.

[Junket]

68. Moyers is among the wisest broadcasters around

But even he can be wrong about some issues. The draft would not change a thing. I'm sorry, but if you think the draft would make everyone think twice about the war then you are fooling yourselves. The draft would end up exactly the same as it was before, what makes you think it wouldn't?

The truth is I would rather die then let my own child get drafted into some future war. I am solidly against it, and some foolish notion about the draft actively involving citizens in resisting the war will not change that.

[democracy1st]

90. kick