Would you support a return of the draft?

Given the discussion on the draft here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2531573

It seems that most of us agree that a draft would increase "interest" in the war in young people. I gotta say I am surprised at the responses that seem almost pro-draft.

My second question is then,

Would you support a return of the draft?

because it might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

That for someone to make such a statement, they don't have children of draft age.

maybe there will be less reason to go to war. granted, exhibit Bush, not all will go, but larger percentages of those who stay home freeping and being all loud-mouthed will.

now entitled to? Figure it out.

There's a lot of middle-class and lower middle class who vote Republican as well.

to be drafted, though I do think the war hawks should be talking up service to their kids.

But I'm completely against anyone's being required to go.

the kids of war hawks shouldn't go either. It's not their fault they have shitheads for parents.

As I said in my post, I think the war hawks should be TALKING UP service, i.e., trying to convince their kids to VOLUNTARILY go, since they are so in favor of war. But I am opposed to anyone's being required to go.

class kids that we use as cannon fodder.

There are still too many fools in the U.S. who are easily persuaded that any cause is a just cause for war, and they'd be willing to give up their children to prove it. Furthermore, I find that, very generally speaking, those in the military develop a slanted perspective and the family inherits this.

If there were ever again to be a draft, the rich would find a way to opt out, and our middle-class and poor sons and daughters would be used, as our soldiers are now, in whatever fashion the souless government deems necessary. I have two sons and a daughter and they have been raised, in a nonreligious household, to love their neighbor and abhor violence. I would not see them have to put aside their beliefs and learn how to shoot to kill another human being, or lose their limbs or lives to preserve the right of americans to consume. The price is simply too high.

I am curious as to how the poll results would show between those that have served compared to those that haven't. I suspect that those that have served would be a bit more in favor of it because they know how they were shaped by their own service. I think there are a lot of Americans today that could use a little shaping...I know no matter how much I hated the Army I am a better person today because of it. :shrug:

not to mention that no kid of mine is going to die for PNAC fantasies.

the Viet Nam era. In 1966 I joined the Navy to try and stay away from the front lines in the war. I say a big NO to the draft. The draft would affect the middle class and the lower class, the upper class will always be able to buy their way out of it for their chidren. The draft would NOT stop the crap that's happening in Iraq. High school students should be focusing on their future not worrying about going to bootcamp. It destroyed a lot of lives in the 60's and 70's and it should never happen again.
:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Would I support a draft if there were no deferments of any kind available, so that all could be drafted regardless of station in life? Absolutely. That was Rangel's proposal.

Would I support a draft that exempts children of the privileged and politically connected? Absolutely not.

You won't send my kid to die in that godforsaken desert to prove a political point.

Please, enough hysterics. Rangel's bill is much deeper than what is on the surface. This debate isn't about draft or no draft.

It's about life or death. And yes, hysterical fits.

Make much sense to you? Think maybe he MIGHT know what's he doing?

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H2690103&type=category&category=National%20Journal

National Journal
(Back to top)

2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 89 percent of the Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 92 percent of the Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 11 percent of the Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 85 percent of the Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2005 Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 12 percent of Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 14 percent of the Representatives.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 88 percent of the Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2004, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 82 percent of the Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2004, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 77 percent of the Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2004 Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 22 percent of Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2004, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 93 percent of the Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2004, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 7 percent of the Representatives.

2004 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2004, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on social policy issues than 17 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 92 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 90 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 79 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 92 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy calculations, in 2003 Representative Rangel voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 21 percent of Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 10 percent of the Representatives.

2003 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on social policy issues than 0 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 86 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 7 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 93 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 94 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 12 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on social policy issues than 3 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 0 percent of the Representatives.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 94 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 7 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on social policy issues than 21 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 5 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 93 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 79 percent of the Representatives.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Representative Rangel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 94 percent of the Representatives.

Because he has more liberal votes than most doesn't make it right. You're parroting from the National Journal like Repukes do. If you really want to see Repukes fight in this war, why don't you support a privatized military. A six figure salary will surely get some "real bastards" to fight never ending wars for profit. Mercenaries love the brutality in killing and torture.

"I don't expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed"

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=154650&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


If people need a constant reminder of the dead, may I suggest:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


Write those numbers on your hand or head--screw the draft!

No.

Because you will be directly impacted....Thanks for checking in!!!

Welcome to DU:hi:

by offering to sacrifice your life?

"I'm against the war, which is why I want there to be more unwilling participants!" Ironclad logic, eh?

Or do you always think only of yourself?

But I guess he's just a selfish asshole for not wanting to be killed by a carbomb.

That's my dream, or better yet to have my head cut off by Zarqui's people. Seriously, people are delusoinal if they think a draft will end all the problems with the war. It infuriates me that there are probably some baby boomers who spent their time when they were my age protesting Vietnam and now are safe from having to fight a war pimping out a draft. The hypocrisy is maddening.

share the wealth. Why should the poor kids get all the freedom? ...But, then....No...Because it is so very frigging wrong.

Current volunteers are pretty much across the spectrum. The draft moved the bar down the economic ladder as the rich could afford to game the rules.

True, the level of enlistment is down so the bar is lowered for acceptance but still the mix isn't that bad.

My argument is that there is a good possibility that we would not be in Iraq if mom & dad America had to give up their sons & daughters.

Afghanistan? Oh hell yes we'd be there, just not most other adventurous wars.

think so.

I'm sympathetic to the arguments that poor people are disproportionately represented in the military and this would be a good reason to support the draft IF one could be certain that a larger pool of cannon fodder wouldn't simply encourage Bush Co to wage more wars. But even in that case, I personally can't see the benefit of a draft.

I'd bet we'd already be in Iran if it wasn't for the fact that the military is already over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least the lack of a draft is causing the government to better reward financially those who do enter the military - even with a draft, there would be some who voluntarily entered the military due to lack of other options and with a draft, they wouldn't be getting the financial incentives they currently get.

with the world so you don't need a draft!!!!

just to call the republicans out on their shit. Whoever voted for Bush in 04 would only be eligible because Bush ran on Iraq and those people voted for Iraq.

Registered Repukes and the kids of the same first!

I was drafted in 1969--a very interesting time to be in the military (as in the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times").

A draft would serve three purposes:

It would involve youth in the political process. Nothing like being shot at to get your attention.

It would expose any possible military excess/abuse/waste. Short timers come home and tell folks what is REALLY happening.

It makes mom & dad America pay attention. My mom was all gung ho for killin' them commies' until her baby boy put on that ugly green suit.

Involuntary or no, thanks for your service.

Very valid points, indeed.

...I joined the Navy in 1966 to keep from being drafted. Youth IS involved in the political process as much as we elders are. The YOUTH should not suffer and be shot at because us ELDERS fucked things up. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT .

no more toy soldiers, if this country wants a war, they must all share the burden.

And yes, I am of prime fighting age (23) so I'm not making this statement recklessly.

(wars make BushCo cronies richer).

The majority of this does NOT want this war. If you're of prime age and believe in this war why don you go to bootcamp and get your ass over there!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

On one hand, it might make people question and think. On the other hand, our government is dishonest and dangerous.

Are you willing to risk the lives of our children so it might get people to stop and think? Yes they are dishonest and dangerous, and that's exactly why there should NOT be a draft. Why would you be willing to risk our kids lives by using them as leverage? :spank:

I could not in good conscience support forcing anybody to go risk their lives over there.

A draft with no exceptions would stop this insanity.

But, there is a better solution. Wars should be fought under the following conditions.

1. All wars should be fought with swords only.
2. All wars should be fought by pairing off the Generals first, then pairing off the next highest ranks, etc.
all the way down to the privates.
3. All wars would be final with all participants declared losers.

Are you nuts! Over 50,000 DIED in Viet Nam after the draft started! THE DRAFT WILL END NOTHING!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Of course, I'm the mother of 2 sons. If my sons, both in their 20s, decided that they wanted a tour, or career, in the military, I'd support them. No one will make that decision for them, though.

I raised them to think for themselves, and make choices based on all the information, plus their value system. I raised them to pilot their own lives, not march to someone else's orders.

I'm not sacrificing their choices to someone else's warmongering, or to someone else's misguided response to warmongering. My sons are NOBODY'S tools.

In the service in 1959.

the draft age you don't care about other peoples sons and daughters?:wtf:

To hell with you. Seriously. I don't care if they're rich or poor, anyone who would throw lives away in order to get a political victory is a worthless piece of shit, whether liberal or conservative.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Having a draft is a major disincentive to waging war.

How many wars did the draft stop? It hastened the end to one that we fought for over a decade(5 years after public opinion shifted against the war and massive demonstrations were common) and were losing.

With people fearing that we are falling into a more and more fascist government why anyone would support a draft?

a full second term because of the Korean conflict. Any Korean vets out there with an opinion on that?

...with a war weary public. But Truman did many unpopular things his 1st term, many of which we hold up now as shining examples of leadership but were reviled in the day.

I don't remember us ever having discussed the draft as an issue during Korea. What I do remember is that my Dad said Truman's popularity plummeted once the Chinese crossed the border and causalites mounted dramatically.

I didn't know whether that loss of popularity translated into anti-draft sentiment.

It's certainly possible.

"What I do remember is that my Dad said Truman's popularity plummeted once the Chinese crossed the border and causalites mounted dramatically"

I would venture that your dad was very correct. Truman also tried to fire MacArthur whcih won him no favors with the populace.

short term, anyway). But I think the longer-term response to MacArthur's firing was a sort of grudging approval for Truman.

If memory serves, Truman had given MacArthur a direct order not to speak to the media and MacArthur disobeyed him. This occurred after MacArthur had assured Truman that Chinese would not invade if US crossed the 38th parallel. US military intelligence failed to detect the 350,000 Chinese troops who had crossed the border and encircled forward U.S. positions. (More specifically, warnings from military intelligence that the shit was about to hit the fan were ignored by commanders like MacArthur.)

Bush made up reasons to go to war with Iraq, didn't he?

Wrangel did this knowing it didn't stand a ghost of a chance, to make a point. Had the thing snowballed, I think you would find him on every talk show that would book him trying to undo it.

n/t

If I thought everyones child was treated the same with no exceptions for the rich and well to do I might say yes.........but that would never happen.

keep my own kids out, even if I couldn't save other kids. If there was a wealth loophole, I'd bankrupt myself to keep them from being forced to serve these criminals.

....

And who says we don't have wedge issues?

Seriously, how can we support a draft when we are against a war. How could you willingly send young men and women against there wills to fight in a war you don't support.

The benefits do not outweigh the cost.

I don't want to send ANYONE to die for this illegal war just to make a political point. I don't care if they support the war or not.

believe the amount of DUer's that are voting for the draft. On one hand they say "NO WAR" and they they say "SUPPORT THE DRAFT", hypocrits.

have a son who is currently 24, I didn't support a draft in the 70's and I won't support one in the future. BushCo would then just have their needed warm bodies in order to wage war the world over. I sincerely believe that is why we are not in Iran and/or Syria at this moment - a shortage of warm bodies. I refuse to sacrifice my son or anyone else's. If they volunteer willingly, then that is their choice.

While it MIGHT make people more politically aware, it would DEFINATELY lead to more warmongering on the part of the GOP.

in wars that are not for the sole purpose of national defense. To draft someone today so they die in Iraq because it applies pressure on some people to end the war is immoral!

We need to end the war but not by killing more of our young people.

troops via the draft and we could end up escalating the war just like we did in Vietnam.

...I can't believe there are so many progressives talking like a bunch of repukes! They're willing to use their kids lives to prove a point, sick. :shrug:

a) no college draft exemption under any circumstance

b) women and men subject to draft and to combat duty

c) draft age should be raised to 50

I think the reason is that a republic will get the fullest participation from its citizenry when they are subject to universal military conscription. The situation right now is that we have the modern-day equivalent of a Praetorian Guard, whose officer corps is increasingly peopled by right-wing evangelical Christian kooks and whose enlisted ranks are populated by victims of the "poverty draft."

If, in fact we are at war, then the sacrifice needs to be shared. A fair draft cuts across all lines and circumstances.

No deferments, either.

You wanna war? Fine. Get your ass out there and fight.

A draft will end an elective war faster than anything you can imagine.

But are you willing to let the outcome of the war lay on the shoulders of our children? Not me. :think:

I do believe it would increase antiwar attitudes among young people -- in fact, given what happened in the 1960s, I know it would. But trading a bunch of wasted lives for a more-antiwar stance is not a trade I'm willing to make. My generation may be apathetic, but killing us off is not the way to make us less so.

on reimposing the draft, with only those who would be eligible to be drafted allowed to vote....

onenote

:toast:

I will not have my sons lives sacrificed to prove an effing point.

WTF is wrong with people?

I'm against the draft but I know that people would be rioting if there was one. Youths today don't know what "war" is and just go on about their lives. No one is sacrificing for this "war" which is why it's able to continue.

There's already a poverty-draft.

And when I say draft, I'm referring to the "universal service" and not the draft during the VietNam era.

and votes YES on the draft, tell me why our children should pay for OUR failures with their lives?

For anyone that says that they'd support a return to the draft but wouldn't themselves be eligible...well, that's an easier position to take than if you were on the firing line yourself.

onenote

I want to know why ANYONE would say yes to a draft. The people that would be drafted and forced to fight have nothing to do with the trouble this country is in. Why should 18 and 19 year olds suffer because of what we did?

All will someone try to keep this bumped over the weekend? I am heading out but I would love to see how this thing ends up.

Right now its 50/50 and I am interested in seeing if it stays that way.

...i.e., one that enlisted young folks uniformly across racial, sexual, & socio-economic demographic lines, the Republican parents of freeper frat boys would be in the streets rioting right alongside ANSWER demanding an end to the Iraq War.

And the war would end.

Further, any other war that didn't involve marauders storming Long Island, or invading Miami Beach would not be undertaken. Another words, with a FAIR draft we would end up fighting wars only in the event we were legitimately threatened.

..."one that enlisted young folks uniformly across racial, sexual, & socio-economic demographic lines." It's not the "YOUNG FOLKS" fault that we are where we are today. Please tell me why they should die! Why don't you wrap yourself in a flag, pick up a helmet and a gun, then hop on the next flight to Iraq? :mad: :mad:

...to what my post actually said? :eyes: :eyes:

Survey says: guidod is bit quick on the 'post message' button.

guidod not quick on the 'post message' button. NO draft, ever! How many innocent kids would die before the republican parents would stand along side and demand an end to the war? One is to many. Do you honestly think a DRAFT would end these type of wars forever? Do you have any children?

Hmmm?

You do realize who it is in the White House, right? You think he cares? All he will see is more meat for the grinder, then what?

For the scenario you mention, there would be a draft, which the U.S. can do if it has officially declared war. Nice try.

Would you mind explaining to me how you're different from the chickenhawks sacrificing other kids to advance an agenda, when you want to do the same thing?

how many people in Iraq right now signed up for the reserves thinking they'd earn a couple of hundred bucks a month and get college paid for? How many thought they'd go to training sessions and camps and help during hurricanes and floods? How many NEVER thought they'd be in Iraq and certainly not for 18 months (or the rest of their lives for too many).

No to draft
No to this damn war! :grr:

I would support the draft with some reservations.
1. those people who don't go into the military still put in two years service to their country
2. three excemptions from the military
A) sole support of their family
These people could do service to their country in their home town.
B) mentally or emotionally unfit.
There are people who I dont want in the military (like the dog handler recently court marshalled for abusing prisoners)
C} people who are physically not qualified.
These people if possible could do service to their country in their home town Unless it is to much of a physical burden on them and their family.

My belief is that everyone should spend at least two years serving their country in some fashion.

Ok I will now get off my soapboax

:dilemma:

If the draft were universal, and if there existed the option Wesley Clark enumerated, that of a noncombat corps. This would give everyone the chance to give a term of service to their country, even those who do not wish to kill or even support killing. The idea is that the noncombat corps would engage in humanitarian relif, etc.

When I say Universal, I mean it. All persons reaching the age of their majority are required to serve at least a two year term, male, female, homo or hetero. You should not be able to escape your term of service, even through schooling. When your schooling is finished, your term of service begins. If you are in a wheelchair and have one arm you can use, you also serve in some capacity according to your ability.

This would free regular military to focus on their jobs, put more troops on the ground when needed, and greatly ease the issue of supplies and equipment to those who need it in the field.

Under those specific circumstances I would support some form of a draft, if I saw a need, which I do not.

Only those people who lost a son, daughter, brother, sister, or loved relative in a war such as Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, or Iraq should vote on the draft issue. Voters cannot be trusted to elect sane leaders (as has now been proven beyond a doubt), and Leaders cannot be trusted to send people to war ONLY to protect our country. Take a good look at the wars that have been fought. Most of them weren't worth one life.

due to the simple fact that my forebears somehow managed to survive fighting in every war to come along in America's history. The ones who were in Desert Storm and are in Iraq now would be contemporaries, not forebears, but you get the point. And no, they are not, and were not, REMF's. My Grandfather was a Marine combat pilot in WW2, my father was a SEAL, etc...

A few of you might remember a novel written by Robert A. Heinlien called Starship Troopers (NOT the movie, which is a total corruption of the story.). One of the concepts there was the idea that if you wished to obtain the status of Citizen (which gave you the right to vote and the right to run for office), you must serve your term in the service. If you wished to serve, you could, but no one was compelled to serve in any case. The only rights you lost by not serving were voting and running for office.

You could choose a noncombat role if you wished and still get your Citizenship. If you wished to serve, they would find a niche for you, no matter what physical or mental disability you might have.

This sort of scheme would eliminate the need for a draft, as young people would be volunteering in droves, rich, poor, and middle class.

Read the story!!

I know that there was an article on ABC website about 3-4 months ago about what would happen when/if the draft gets re-instated. We talked about it on another forum. I cant find it now. They would take 18-26 y/o. First 18, then 19 etc up to 26. This time around, there will be no going to Canada, as we signed a document with them in 2001 that says we will both extradite draft dodgers back to their country. Also, school will only keep one out until the end of the current semester.

Already, the military has collected names, social security numbers, addresses, etc of 16 to 18 year olds in high schools.

Congressman Charles Rangel introduced legislation last month to re-instate the draft. He says it is because all economic classes will then fight, but I seem to remember that the rich/powerful got out of it in Vietnam anyway.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html

Males and females…

But with no exceptions, as in what happened during the Vietnam war when the wealthy class used influence to keep their sons safe but were happy to send the lower classes etc.

When the people that make war have to send their own sons and daughters, there will be a lot less of it.

Are you willing to put on a uniform and fight along side the kids? They start drafting at 18, why should these kids die. Everyone thinks the, so called, war would end right away. If the draft started now Bush would be right, the war would last until 2009. NO DRAFT!

"The bill would mandate military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Deferments would be allowed only for completion of high school up to the age of 20, and for reasons of health, conscience or religious belief. Recruits not needed by the military in any given year would be required to perform some national civilian service."

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=154650&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

This is what you just voted yes to. Do you agree?

It's not only about the age...People who vote yes have no idea what they're voting for.

edit: typo

"PRO DRAFT" take a step back here at DU. The "DRAFTERS" on the other thread should take a look at this, can you say "tail between your legs"?

with all the draft information included. And another poll for pro-drafters various reasons.

I can't believe how many DUer's were voting in favor of the draft. Kids 18 and 19 years old should never have to be accountable for their parents mistakes.

thought it out before they voted, I did anyway.

I think a fair draft, where everyone was equally at risk, (specially the corporate class’s boys and girls along with senators kids and even the presidents), would make war less likely. If I were to design a system, I would make it very, VERY hard to make any exceptions. That’s just my opinion.

Answer me this:

1) How could you put everyone equally at risk?
2) Why would you put everyone equally at risk?
3) Upon mere word of draft legislation: How would you keep corporate class, senators, and even the president from flying their family members to another country? How would you stop them?
4) Pick just one exception you could make "very, Very hard."
5) How could a draft be "fair" if the ones drafted (live or die) for our mistakes that took them into war? And how fair is that?
6) What ages are fair for the draft?
7) What MOS is fair for everyone?
8) How do you make people fight in a war if they resist?

...My opinion is I don't think any child, regardless of who their parents are, should be forced to fight and die for the mistakes of their parents. The children are 100% innocent.

To send people's kids to war against their will for a bunch of lies and to increase corporate profits is so immoral there are no words for me to express how immoral it is. ALTHOUGH, we should have been telling people bush will have to start the draft to invade Iran. We all know that is what he wants to do and we knew it in 2004 also. All those neo-con jerks on TV and in the Whitehouse are just spoiling for this fight. It looks like bush is finally out of "political capital" so he will not be getting his way for once but we were closer than people know to invading Iran and we might not be out of the woods yet. Just wait til after the 2006 elections.

and nobody is going to force my kid to sign up for war. I don't know what Rangel is trying to prove with this dumbass piece of legislation.

Now, if my son decides to join the military, that's his choice. I'm an Air Force veteran, and while I won't encourage him to join, I'll support his decision.

I have a 20 year old and a 18 year old sons; 16 year old daughter.

Yes, the military sends it, calls here constantly. That dude from the Air Force wants the youngest one bad, he wants to know what he is doing after college. Apparently, he scored well in that little test, plus he is at the top of his class, citizenship awards.

I'm disabled but you can bet I would drag this crippled ass out protesting if they reinstated, ole Pierce better be going too, YA KNOW?

I would never want to see one actually passed. I just want the fear of it returning to scare people into action.

he wants, regardless of what congress says (see http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/administration-tells-congress-again-we.html).

I think that if he had more cannon fodder, we would already be in Iran.

Wars generate a lot of profit for Bush cronies (not to mention a lot a funds to slyly steal as well).

powers.

A draft, with the option for CO status, which people shouldn't have to fight for. But they should have to sign on the freaking line stating that they do NOT support war, and they should have to state WHY, in writing, in order to stay out of it.

I want them to have to go on record stating that they oppose the war, so we don't have another generation of chicken hawks running the country, claiming they wanted to fight but all the war jobs were "taken by the blacks", or claiming they supported the war, but couldn't personally fight because they had "other priorities".

I want all the young republicans to have to make a written statement that's a matter of public record, explaining why they oppose the war, and if they can't do that, I want their asses over there fighting it.

I'm 17, and it would be my neck that was on the line.

Bush look even worse. (How could he)
I hate war, don't support anything
about it except the troops.

Of course, I'm sane enough to realize it's a stupid fucking idea to send people to their deaths to prove a point.

The more affluent will have to jump through one more hoop to keep their kids out of war. Big deal.

I have no idea what Rangel is trying to prove, but there's no way the majority of the country would sign on to this. It's embarrassing.

But I would favor a national service requirement, a program where there is a choice in service, military or civil.