Rangel wrangling for The Draft?

Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2006 last February. Debate on this bill is reportedly scheduled to begin this week, 06/06/06. The text of the bill can be found at THOMAS. Enter HR 4752 into the search box, select Bill Number and click SEARCH. Among other things, this bill calls for compulsory military service for both males and females ages 18 to 42. The bill does not allow exemptions for undergraduate or graduate work except for a person who



Just thought you'd like to know. Comments are of course invited.

...it the "put up or shut up about how much you love this country and 'support the Troops'" bill.

I think this is a good idea, but we need to make a serious effort at finding the right counter-spin to all the RW-BS Spin that is going to get thrown at this bill.

a draft was begun during the Vietnam war. Only people who didn't live through those years could think another draft would be a panacea. All a universal-service/draft would do is feed thousands of warm bodies into the war machine. That's why we fought to eliminate the draft in the first place.

Been there, done that.

sign it and then issue one of his famous "signing statements" that would somehow exclude "certain" people from this draft--thereby rendering the bill to be only a mandatory draft for those who can't buy their way out of it with their daddy's money or their status in life. and--charlie rangel would ultimately be instituting a regular draft--which is just what he doesn't want.

i understand rangel's point of "put up or shut up". however--things have gotten too out of hand--the gop has gotten too far out of control--and we'd be handing two generations of people over to bush so he can turn half of this country into a true nazi state.

it was an interesting idea when charlie first tried it--but it's too dangerous now. now it would only backfire.

nasty things.

...change the equation a bit. They first need to ban all future signing statements before even considering this.

The draft was in existence for the entire Vietnam War: 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 As documented here.

Of course, at that time, the draft did not apply to the rich - see Dick Cheney, "I had other things to do at that time" (paraphrasing).

If the rich were subject to a draft, we would not be in Iraq today. There is really no question, if the rich were subject to a draft, we would not be in Iraq today.

In a democracy, the only fair approach to fighting wars is to force all citizens (within reasonable health and age constraints) to fight the war. Under these circumstances, I believe the US would be a far less belligerent country.

DU'ers, who "corrected" me when I said we had more than 50,000 deaths despite the draft. They said that we used a volunteer army during most of the early years, and I made the mistake of believing them.

But I disagree with you about a draft making this a less belligerant country. We got rid of the draft to make it harder for subsequent administrations to fight a war that didn't have the support of the people -- in other words, that people weren't willing to volunteer to fight for. Now we talk about reinstating it for the exact same reason. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I really don't think that his intention was to make the US less belligerent. I believe his intention was to eliminate the protests against the Vietnam War. A lot of the protests did end with the end of the draft.

While the war in Vietnam was unpopular, the draft was not universal. This allowed influential people (or the sons of influential people) to remain free of the draft while the sons of the poor and the non-influential could not avoid the draft. My contention is that influential people can stop an unnecessary war if it puts their sons and daughters at risk.

We didn't have a universal draft during the Vietnam War - not really.

The question is an extremely difficult one. But, if we let this country become an belligerent empire, and I believe it is becoming that today, we will lose the liberties that we have. We will all become cannon fodder for the powers that be. I believe that a free country with a draft is preferable.

have a draft that didn't favor the wealthy and well-connected. Don't forget that even Rangel's bill states that the administration would write all the regulations.

The founders did not want a standing army and wanted a citizen army and I think they were right. It, I think, would cut down on wars. Course when one thinks of our old wars we do have to wonder if that really worked but this way does not work either. Lot of rich men in Congress turning over our power to other rich men in the WH to have us go to war. It is such a waste of every thing. Men and goods. With the slow slip down the grade of world power we may not have to worry. We will not be able to have them for long.

What he was saying seemed to echo what was said in "F-9/11," that it is mainly poor or minority kids, with few other options, who join the military, and that he was trying to even the odds. And, as was also said in the film, no doubt our members of Congress would view the Iraq war differently if their kids were required to serve.:-(

this service? And we're supposed to rely on the Bush administration to write all these regulations?

Rangel is nuts. If I were living in his area, I'd be fighting him tooth and nail.

He is making a point. If the rich had their kids in uniform this war would stop tomorrow, think about it. The AVF is a draft on poor kids now, an economic draft-that is what he is saying, get a grip...

actually went out there. But the draft didn't stop the war until more than 50,000 Americans had already died. That's no solution.

where do you think I got it? So I know about these things too...

rush into Iraq? Didn't it make you sick?

P.S. Yes you do know more about Vietnam than I do. And I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Everyone knew (or should have known) it would happen though. War makes people insane, war is insanity, it is the vilest form of pornography. Kerry wasn't speaking of aberrations in the Winter Soldier, I hate to tell you.

I wasn't busting on you, I know what you feel & I appreciate your intent.
Peace.a

I am a mother of two teenage sons and feeling very worried about their future. It killed me when my older one had to register. I would rather go to Iraq myself than send either one of them there.

I thought the Kerry movie was profoundly moving, and I never thought he was talking about aberrations. Again, I'm sorry for you and anyone else who had to live through that. And I'm doubly sorry that we apparently learned nothing from all your sacrifice.

No need for apologies. You're a hero in my book.

He knows he won't get this through ofcourse he is not serious. However this will shake things up and get people thinking. If it does that then it has accomplished what it was meant. None of us on this board are looking for more bodies to go into this war.......

a quick end to the war.

That was one of Michael Moore's main points in "F-9/11." It was the poor kids in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, with few options, who were easily persuaded to join the military. But he was totally dismissed when he attempted to hand out applications to our reps in D.C. They would no doubt have an entirely different attitude on this war if their kids were required to serve.:-(

And I also thank you for your service. It takes a great deal of courage to sacrifice as you have.:patriot:

He has NO point unless he's willing to vote for it himself, and there is no evidence he will. Just mind-numbingly stupid politically.

I like the way you put that. :7 It seems to me there is an epidemic of that problem in Congress and Washington in general.

But maybe we're finally shaking ourselves out of our delirium. I hope so.

you'd be a minority and probably be living with a lower income than most people. It's districts like Chuck Rangel that are being most effected because military service is usually one of the easiest options to get out of the gut-wrenching life you've been dealt. And now it's his people over there fighting our wars.

This bill would spread the service out to all income levels, races & religions so that the farm boy in Kansas, the prep-school kid from California or the inner-city youths of Harlem would all be equally treated in his version of the draft.

Every single big city representative should be standing side-by-side with Rangel on this. Chuck is tired of his district, which is primarily Harlem NYC, being the breeding ground for future body bags of war.

and enroll in the military?

Here is Tim Ryan's great short speech from the debate that was had, last time Rangel put this bill up in late 2004

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8gANbwU5yg&search=Tim%20Ryan

...it still allows Republicans to point to us and tell young voters "the Democrats are the ones pushing to bring back the draft." Not a good move at all.

(And anyone who thinks that "if ordinary people's children were being drafted, we wouldn't go to war" obviously didn't live through Korea or Vietnam.)

This is a case of cant see the trees through the forest. What are you saying. Horray, our guy is reintroducing the draft? Horrible!

and, as others have noted, he does this every year knowing full well the hawks don't have the stomach to pass a draft.

It's Harlem that votes for him, not Tulsa, and Harlem loves him for these stunts.

coming from this 'stunt'.

If they realized it was their children and grandchildren, or themselves, who was going to go fight these imperial wars, they wouldn't be so gung-ho for the US get involved in them.

I was very much against the draft in the '60s and early '70s.

But maybe that would be fine with you.

Or do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

a statement that 30-40 years ago you were against the draft.

You didn't say you still opposed it. I'm glad to hear that you do. If that's what you are saying.

First and foremost, Chuck is 110% anti-war. I got to meet him when he came to a memorial service our local peace group had outside of the Dover Air Force Base (all the dead from Iraq return through DAFB).

But think about who Chuck Rangel represents in congress. His district encompasses most of Harlem and part of Queens and this district has a high proportion of minorities and people on lower income. And unfortunately these seem to be the people who have been fighting our wars of lately. Let's face it, if you can find a way to get yourself through college, the military especially right now, is not the place you want to be.

I think Rangel has 2 motivations behind this draft. First, it was the start of the draft that really pushed the anti-war movement to it's highest level during the Vietnam AND help bring the fence-sitters over to our side. War is NOT a bad thing as long as it's not you or someone you love being forced to fight it. The second movitation is to eliminate the loopholes found in so many other drafts. If a draft were to happen, Mr. Rangel could pretty much see a high number of his constitutes being drafted simply because they do not have the money or connections to get themselves out of the draft. Rangel's draft would have very few exceptions. If your number was called you'd have to go regardless of your family's status or connections. If anything, every big city representative should support this law because it really does protect those who are in lower incomes being stuck fighting the rich man's war

a quick scheme to end a war. Instead, it would give Bush all the troops he needs for his grandiose plans.

And I disagree. War IS a bad thing no matter who we send to fight it. I was protesting the Iraq invasion long before we went in there, even though I knew no one from my family would be there. Sending volunteers there didn't make the invasion any more moral or justifable.

Rangel is crazy like that but he also knows his district suffers during times of war.

is that so many Du'ers seem to think it's a viable option. I wonder how many of them have teenage sons?

and if there was a draft :scared: I would hope it's Rangel's version where everyone is considered evil instead of making a certain class of people able to get out of serving.

Let's just hope it's nothing more than a protest vote made to stimulate debate about why this war is bad!

Actually, mine is already in the Air National Guard. I talked him into joining precisely because I was afraid Bush might institute a draft. And while I was in the Army and loved it (overall), I wouldn't want my boy going into a war zone with the current commander-in-chief, secretary of defense, and the yes-men generals who do whatever they want.

But yeah, I support a draft. One reason is that I honestly believe more people would care about whether the reasons for war were legitimate if they had a stake in the decision. Another is that I do not believe that the greatest sacrifice should be made by those who receive the least economic benefit of living in this country. I have other reasons, but those are the most immediate.

I, personally, would care just as much whether or not my own children were at risk. I was out there protesting with our local peace groups well before this started, and my older one was only 13 or 14.

My idea before he enlisted was that if he got sent overseas, it would probably be to an airbase in Spain or Diego Garcia, or at worst Kuwait or Qatar.

But alas, he qualified to be a weather forecaster, and they deploy with Army infantry and armor brigades. In fact, he was provided the tactical training for just that mission, right after he completed his weather specialty training. Also, Bush/Rumsfeld have been backfilling Army support personnel (truck drivers, for example) with Air Force and Navy personnel, because of low Army enlistments. So yeah, he's at risk... just not as much as if he were in the Army or Marine Corps.

Be that as it may.... I'm glad, and offer my sincere thanks, that you care as much as you would if it were your own kids. I think a lot of good people do. Unfortunately, I don't think most people care. Not just Republicans; Democrats too. Certainly not as much as they would if it were their own children. No one can care that much. I care a LOT, but not as much as if my son were put on orders to Iraq tomorrow.

Edit to add: I put this in my reply in the last thread on the draft in which I commented (it's linked in this thread somewhere), but I think I need to put it in again. Just because I support a draft, and wear a Clark avitar, no one should assume that Clark is for the draft. He's very much against it.

not without cause, but it's pro forma for him. He doesn't want the Harlem kids doing all of the dying in a war that the Westchester & Nassau County voters wanted and continue to applaud.

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

I wonder if results would be different this time around?

But Bush doesn't listen to them. Never has, never will. He doesn't even listen to his own advisors. He's too busy listening to the voices in his head.

First of all, why do you want innocent kids to go over there and get killed in an illegal war? Second, when Rangel et al DON'T vote (again) for their own bill, they'll be labeled as hypocrites and blowhards. This can only get thrown back in our faces. The bullshit grandstanding needs to stop.

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

From the rules:



I expect a mod to be along any minute now.

Oh and Constitution Party??? On a progressive board??

:rofl:

You might get along here for awhile as a green, but I don't think telling people to vote Constitution Party over Democrats will earn you many friends here.

The age limit scares the snot out of me.

under middle America! Wake up and smell the fear, people. The war is for real.

I guess the future rank and file will be dying in
in combat while the future officers are chillin'
over Martinis at their frat parties.

How are the officers of the future going to get any
trigger time?