Look at the co-sponsors on Rangel's Draft Bill.

[BurtWorm]

All-star lefties.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jump to: Titles, Status, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments, Cosponsors, Summary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Reinstate draft bill (identified by CRS)

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Universal National Service Act of 2003

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
1/7/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
2/3/2003:
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
2/3/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Armed Services Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Total Force Referral



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED BILL DETAILS: (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)
Bill: Relationship:
S.89 Identical bill identified by CRS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 7/21/2004
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004)

[JohnKleeb]

1. interesting

Hey I'd enlist if I had to and I felt the cause right, I'd prefer to get a non combat role like as a medic though.

[BurtWorm]

2. Note that it includes a clause for "national service."

But I wonder if Congress will be able to tolerate giving young people a choice like that when the leaders are hot for a war.

[JohnKleeb]

3. hmmm

you mean like the peace corps as an example?

[BurtWorm]

4. I imagine something like that and Americorps.

Of course with "Homeland Security" now all the rage, they might be looking for warm bodies to inspect cargo holds and things like that, as well.

[TahitiNut]

22. It could be a choice of 18 months in the Army vs. 36 months in VISTA.

If the period of service is, say, between 12 months and 48 months, depending on which form of service is chosen, then the trade-off will be enough to allocate people according to need.

That's assuming, of course, there's a choice. Maybe a 'choice' would require an extra commitment. For example, during Vietnam we could either be drafted for 2 years or enlist for 3 years - with a 'choice' of first duty assignment. I don't think the 'choice' actually kept guys out of Vietnam, however, since the 'needs of the service' took precedence.

I, for one, support this legislation.

[Dem_Loyalist]

5. I haven't been here that long and now I'm confused

Ive read so many posts here saying the repukes will be starting the draft. Isn't Rangel a good Progressive Democrat? Now I'm really confused.

[RapidCreek]

9. The Republican will never try to institute a draft

if they did...first of all their shitass kids would have to go and fight the wars of corporate opportunity they like to start....second the American populace wouldn't tolerate them starting any more if it was their lives which would be sacrificed for Haliburtons bottom line.

War is a little more real when it's your butt getting shot off.

RC

[ProudDad]

10. I think he's trying to get the rich boys

into the wars instead of the poor and people of color currently being attracted by the billions of dollars of empty lies from the "all-volunteer" military. :puke:

I don't think it's a good idea unless the draftees are means-tested, that is, their parents must be in the top 5% of family incomes.

I'd vote for that one...

[BurtWorm]

11. Rangel has consistently argued that a draft would democratize

the military, if it were properly enforced. He doesn't want to see more George Bushes sneaking out of service. Of course there is a loophole in the bill, namely the National Service clause. So George Bushes will continue to slink out of harm's way.

[TahitiNut]

25. Not really.

Think about it. If there were National Service options ranging from, say, 12 months in the Army (with 3 for training and 9 in a combat zone), to 48 months in the Public Health Service (with 6 months for training and 42 months in the field) ... then the little rich kids would want to get it over with quicker and get back to their coke-snorting and slave-driving. The inner city kids, on the other hand, could get training in a field that could become a vocation. The spoiled heir-heads wouldn't have the slightest interest in vocational training and actually working - and if they did, they'd become democrats. (Yes. I agree with Charlie Rangle that mandatory National Service would democratize the electorate. Big time.)

[ProudDad]

6. This is DANGEROUS

The military is the WORST model for how humans should behave. This is total bullshit.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!

:puke:

[jpgray]

7. Yep, a lot of the CBC and Progressive Caucus (nt)

[951]

8. This tells me the Kerry admin is going to propose a draft...

and some of you people will support it.

Well I'm not

:puke:

[jpgray]

12. Bullshit

A first term Democrat would draft when Bush would not? When the polls show pulling out of Iraq is more popular than a draft?

[ProudDad]

13. Me either

All militaries are inherently evil! :nuke:

That's their job!

[RapidCreek]

16. I will

They day we have a draft will be the day we will engage in no more wars....What, you like wars as long as it ain't you and yours that's got to fight them? How chickenshit. It's pretty easy for Joe sixpack to sit in front of his TV and yell BooRaa while watching the Fox war cheerleaders going on about the patriotism of sacrificing kids for Haliburtons bottom line.....I'll tell you what...you'd find a whole lot of flag waving, I support the troop mother fuckers turning into liberals on the day that they contemplate what life without a leg or arm is like. They'd become a whole lot more interested in preventing the needless deaths incurred in pointless battles if the needless deaths will be their own.

Like most Republicans...the day being a Republican becomes inconvenient for them personally....the day supporting the troops means supporting themselves on the paltry wage their going to earn catching lead that's the day they'll all of a sudden become stalwarts for peace and diplomacy.

RC

RC
USNvet

[TahitiNut]

26. Yup. Ubetcha.

:thumbsup:

[Dorian Gray]

28. I would like to think that's true....

But look at Israel. They have madatory service for all their citizens, and they don't shy away from confrontations.

Not that I think we are exactly like Israel.

This is actually the first that I read of the bill. I'd like to learn more before I make a final decision, though I am leaning towards really disliking it.

[mark414]

14. it's a PROTEST bill

both Rangel and Hollings (in the Senate) introduced identical bills as a protest to the war. they know that they will never get anywhere because they also call for women to be drafted.

they are simply a means to make the american populace understand just what could be at stake here.

[BurtWorm]

15. If McDermott is cosponsoring it,

that ought to tell us something.

[mark414]

17. PROTEST

protest bill

rangel and hollings have even said they wouldn't vote for their own bills

[BurtWorm]

18. That's funny!

I think they should push a bill that ensures that every able bodied person between 18-34 spends at least two years active duty and two years reserve, and that anyone trying to get out of it by missing required physicals, not showing up for duty, doing coke and getting busted for it, dancing naked on bar tops, wrecking F-102s, etc., etc., etc., gets executed in Texas. And it should be retroactive, specifically, to 1972.

[mark414]

19. huh?

they were proposing this bill as a way to get people to realize that if they support this war they'd better be prepared to make sacrifices for it. not only in protest of the war itself, but of the fact that the great majority of our military is made up of poor or rural kids who have no options other than the military.

[BurtWorm]

20. What do you mean "huh?"

I thought it was pretty clear who I had in mind for them to target in a reinstate-the-draft-bill that Republicans would never ever support: one that makes sure fortunate sons like Bush don't wriggle out into safety.

[mark414]

23. i got that...i thought you were getting all snippy or sarcastic with me

or something

it's hard to understand emotions via the world wide web

[BurtWorm]

24. I'll say!

I was impressed that you seemed to be the only one to really get it. Sheesh!

:hi:

[hang a left]

21. I feel ya, man. n/t

[BurtWorm]

27. kick

[BurtWorm]

29. kick again.