To those who support a draft.....

I'm going to try and be nice but don't know if I can.

Many of us here LIVED through the Vietnam era and the horrors of a draft. We had friends, brothers, fathers and sons called up and many of them died, were wounded or screwed up emotionally for the rest of their lives.
It's bad enough to volunteer for service and be caught up in war, but to be forced into fighting a war you don't believe in is even worse.

We protested and screamed and wrote letters and resisted the draft and now a bunch of naive, deluded or ignorant people come along and want it reinstated?

Drafting kids is no way to teach them discipline....that is a parents job. Playing Russian roulette with kids lives is immoral and disgusting.

NO, the rich won't send their children which is a lesson WE learned. We don't intend to relearn it because of YOUR stupidity.

So, not just NO, but HELL NO. You want YOUR kids to learn discipline then sign them up but keep your friggin' hands off other's children.

punishing or disciplining anyone. It is about countering apathy towards self-rule.

EDIT: forget it -- my position is not to instill a draft right now. My bad for thinking that my posts in the other OP's were being read. Carry on and don't pay any attention to this post.

...often at the cost of their lives or their future.

Apparently even the draft didn't convince any more of the electorate to go out and vote than the lack of a draft does now.

The children of the powerful WILL NOT SERVE. Got that? Repeat it over and over again until you realize what it means. THE CHILDREN OF PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY EFFECT CHANGE DO NOT SERVE, NOT IN THE PAST, NOT NOW, NOT EVER.

Parents of the drafted kids weren't the ones who protested the Vietnam War, quite the contrary. They were the ones pissing and moaning that those of us who protested that war should be shot for treason. It will be no different now. People will SUPPORT authority if their children are sucked into slave labor servicing that authority. So there goes your point, shot to pieces by the facts of history.

The draft will be sold to those ignorant of history as a "community service" draft, but you and I both know that the needs of the military will be on the top of the "communities" that need service.

eom

otherwise they stayed in the US.

Big difference between that war and the war in Iraq.

by the by, he never came home... but I am sure you knew that

By the way, the reason why most volunteered is becuase officers volunteered and coincidentally they were officer material... but I am sure you knew that too

Sometimes defined as....

A state of not caring; not wanting to know; complacency; indifference; to ignore; disinterested in contemplation; anesthetized by popular culture; a postmodern intellectual narcosis; compassion fatigue; too lazy; too busy; self-indulgence; limited choices in work and leisure-time; non-reflection, non-deliberation and subconscious blocking of distressing information.

Among the draft endorsers, apathy is assumed to be less ethically excusable than ignorance. ...

These are the types we want to draft??????

Yeah, that'll work----Not!

And the rest of us can sit back and watch. OK, the flood gates are open.

improved Iraqi Army.

3 or 4 rotations doesn't effect too many people. Its O.K to lower the recruitment standards, you wouldn't want to Field the best army you could, at least in a war based on lies would ya?

in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That's pretty personal to me buddy.

I was Drafted. #11 .. those Friends of your kid joined and as long as we can get Cannon Fodder with their parents sitting at home in front of the TV being hoodwinked by the MSM they will do it . It wasn't until the Draft and the Draft Lottery was utilized that People went to the streets, which we should be doing now,, so have you protested lately?

and probably don't deserve to know, the parents of the six have protested the war also, without the draft. Somehow, they seem to love their cannon fodder enough to protest this illegal war. Their kids signed on for the Guard, noble service and all that.

Nine years and 50,000 dead later, AFTER the draft, Nam' ended. One midterm election and criminal No. 2, Rumsfeld, was booted out. Times have changed.

BTW, half my family was drafted during Nam'. I know what it's about.

Casualties 1961 _ 1965- 1864

1966 5008

1967 9784

1968 15784

1969 9414

1970 4221

1971 1380

1972 700



Do you see the Bell curve here the first 4 years there were 1864 KIA ,, 1967 and 1968 is when the draft really started then in 1969 the lottery started ,, strange the casualties started falling… Don’t forget that Viet Nam lasted 9 years but the last 5 years were the bloodiest.

not personal at all.

"Hey buddy some friends of mine's kids are in that hellhole OK? That's personal buddy!"

you realize how fucking ridiculous that sounds right.

your kids' 6 high school friends. wow i was way off. my bad. all that drinking ya know. it's so clear to me now.

:wtf:

i did start drinking later on though.

never follow 4 beers up with a a cup or two of baileys. bad idea.

upon edit: form to from

of privilege weaseled out of the drat the last time.

Redstone

To be fair Clinton too

which puts him in a totally different category than the others. IMO.

Hell for him I am happy he didn't. But the rest had money to buy their way out and did

Clinton avoided the draft through student deferments but in the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft. He received a high number (311) and was never called to serve. According to a CNN article, "...it was his doubts about the morality of the war and the Selective Service system that led him to abandon the ROTC idea and to subject himself to a draft lottery. Only the luck of the draw - a high lottery number - kept him out. " (Jeff Greenfield, ABC News, quoting Gov. Clinton.)

Indeed, he was not rich, but even by the age of 22-23, he was better connected with the power elite than most young men of his state. There weren't many Rhodes Scholars from Arkansas, and the local people on his draft board were willing to pull strings to protect him because of that.

In the end, though, he got a high lottery number making much of this moot.

It didn't need to play out that way. Why did we let it? Because we had other things to do, like watch teevee?

in a mere 9 years.:sarcasm:

Seriously, recommended with my thanks.

in peace time.

If 18-26-year-olds are still "kids" then it ain't the draft that's a problem. :eyes:

As long as that meme echoes in one's skull, like some mantra of 'faith,' then little else can be heard.

18 year olds are still kids. Shit, I remember thinking I was an adult at 22 and I didn't know jack shit.

If you want to put your kids in the military, have at. Keep your damn hands off of everyone else's kids.

I would have resented the hell out of it to be told that when I was 18-26, but, yeah, I was just a kid. Looking back, I sure know it now.

My Dad was in Vietnam in 1962-63...and he didn't finish growing up in a lot of ways until he was almost fifty. So try not to tell me how much it can mature someone. Some people mature, some people don't...no matter what they go through.

My best friend's little sister is 34. She was a military wife for several years. Sometimes she still seems like she's fifteen.

For some people the military can be an insulator from the real world as well.

gheesh....at 18, even at 21, I think they should be kids. Life has enough hard knocks without adding being maimed or killed in a war.

I heard that a possible draft would go 18-42.

I am NOT going to Iraq, and I want the people who are there
to come home.

... like the Chinese bound the feet of their women. Cute. Preserves that "child-like" quality. But crippled. (I think we're seeing it.)

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

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

or, ask him/her for advice on ANY problem you have. Everyone has problems from time to time. Every time you have a problem, you should be made to ask for AND TAKE the advice of this "adult" 18-yr-old. Hell, I'd be willing to allow you some leeway, and say you could make it a 19-yr-old or a 20-yr-old.

So... would you sell a brand new car to an 18-yr-old, with him/her signing a contract to pay you 5 years worth of payments at a certain interest rate, etc.? Would you enter into a real estate contract with an 18-yr-old?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then please STFU.

... would make spurious conflicts *less* likely, while others think that it'll make them *more* likely.

It isn't a "slam-dunk", imo, which side is right - both have some intuitively strong things to offer in their support.

I do think it boots nothing, however, for either side to belittle the other for which way they're inclined to think on the matter.

we KNOW it won't.....been there friggin' done that.

think a draft CAN BE DONE CORRECTLY.

They are in error.

Reagan proposed a "flatter, FAIRER tax code, you can send it in on a postcard."

Congress stepped in and has been providing sweetheart tax breaks for their largest contributors every single year, usually as riders to important bills that nobody wanted to vote down because of a single bad rider.

How's that tax code working for us NOW?

What makes you think Congress won't do at least as much for their CHILDREN???

Fair, my ass. Possible, my ass. That's where idealism runs smack dab into reality. It's just not going to happen, kids.

... That still doesn't yield the conclusion "impossible".

Again - there are two competing lines of thought - neither of which is a slamdunk winner, imo:

1) Insanity is doing the same thing again, and expecting a different result.

(A glib approximation of a Warpy-esque view)

2) If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Both lines of thought reflect nontrivial intuitions - neither is to be dismissed out of hand, I don't think - regardless of the fact that I, or you, adhere to the one, rather than the other.

I don't care what Rangel's bill says about "no exceptions". Please.

I see. So, instead of having the top 5% evade doing their share, you'd rather have the top 50% evade doing their share. After all, who needs to be 'rich' if they can be just as selfish and amoral? After all, it's not about sharing the risks and equitable participation - it's about jealousy?

So, it can't be 'perfect' so why even try to be 'better' in sharing the risks.

Some of us opposed this war from Day One. I don't feel that we should have to sacrifice anything for an endeavor that we never supported in the first place.

Does that make me selfish? I don't care.

If you don't dig on the ideal, fine, I suppose, but that really IS one of the "mission statements" of this country.

EDIT: You know, like "united we stand, divided we fall"? Or "we must hang together, else assuredly we shall all hang separately" (approximate quote)?

Go figure. Thanks for the talismen quotes. D'oh! :dunce: <--me

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/347

It sounds just like a kid who's NOT going to play with THAT old, broke toy .. or the one (s)he didn't ask Santa for.

The very notion of a democratic nation - or one that even WANTS to be one - is that we're all in the same boat. We row together even when the guy we put at the tiller for this shift goes off course. We share in the decision-making, we share in the choices - EVEN WHEN WE DON'T CHOOSE. Part of choosing includes choosing to riot or not, choosing to revolt or not, choosing to vote or not, choosing to engage in civil disobedience or not. We MUST share in the work of a democracy as well - and that includes military service ... AS LONG AS WE HAVEN'T MADE IT OBSOLETE.

Wishing don't make it so. In the very fact that so many in this nation say NIMBY and Not Me ... we're seeing a collusion with the death of a democracy. It's tragic to see it here, imho.

"Each of us, I believe, have a human right to incorporate our heritages into our sense of self to whatever degree we wish. While there are certainly questions of integrity and character, I don't believe I have the right to impose my cultural 'definitions' on others."

So its apprantly the case that you feel unable to impose your cultural standards on other americans, but your 'definitions' of who is or is not acting as a patriot are fair game.

Gee, where have we heard this kind of logic before?

There's nothing at all inconsistent between what I said then or now - or even forty years ago. Perhaps your confusion is in the term "self-determination"?? By that I mean WHO we view ourselves to be - how much, if any, of our ancestral background we wish to incorporate in how we view ourselves. I did NOT mean anarchy - do whatever you want and take without giving. In ANY society there's a "social contract" - and I DON'T mean repressions and peer pressure. You want to be a CO? Fine. That's respected and accommodated. Demonstrate a commitment other than mere convenience. Independent of what hyphenation you want to use, being part of a nation carries with it both benefits and responsibilities. ANY nation.

benefits and responsibilities. You specifically support a draft. That is neither a benefit or a responsibility. So what would you call it? A societal IOU to be called up for the sake of illegal wars, on a whim, during governmental anarchy, when???? And who is to assume that young people are not "giving"? When have they been called upon to sacrifice for the so called war on terror or the war in Iraq?

Would you embrace "social Darwinism" as the creed of the land? I support shared service - and, at a minimum, the equitable "risk" of such shared service. I support it in lieu of sending THE SAME people back to Iraq (or Afghanistan) 2 and 3 times - NOT because I want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan, but because the FACT is that we're there and that failure of the body politic should not rest solely on the backs of those economically coerced into military service - even generation after generation. I'll go for an equitable DISTRIBUTION of the coercion, since the economic kind is otherwise only made worse ("for the good of the service") when the privileged (even if that means top 50%) benefit thereby.

possible for you to do so. Not so our rich and infamous. But why reduce the options to black or white. Any war anytime is going to result in crap for anyone in the military. The fact that the military has succombed to the Bush/Rumsfeld?Cheney doctrine of disposable human beings does not mean that a discussion of a draft or an actual draft will change their minds.

What could change their minds are hard choices. A draft is easy for them, deadly politically, but easy. Easier still is running people through 2-3 rotations. This is the unofficial backdoor draft.

But let's imagine a different scenario, you're a kid, there's a war, you know some facts but not all and there is no DU enlightenment....you learn of the back door draft. Will you enlist for the sake of the soldiers in country? Are you prepared? Noble enough? Brave enough? Hungry enough?

Ashamed enough?

What will bring you to the table? Money. Benefits. Training for something beyond cradling a gun and falling in a ditch. Happening? No. Why? Let's go back to the disposable human being ethic. Its the creed of the wealthy elite, they live it daily. If you're not one of them, you don't count. Ever. As an enlistee you may get better lip service but face it, you're a draftee, even a backdoor draftee, you're shit to this administration.

... Social Darwinism, increasing chasms between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' (as long as we get 'ours'), view the government as 'them' instead of 'us,' and don't vote (or bust the machines in an act of rebellion), protest, write, and engage in civil disobedience. In fact, we have more power to abandon democracy than to enact an equitable draft. So, if you want to compare pins in terms of how many angels fit, the discussion of an equitable draft is the smaller pin.

Regarding your other irrelevant question, it was about a year ago on DU that I posted about my inclination to want to personally go stand by the side of those in Iraq and Afghanistan just so the crimes of the Administration that *WE* allowed to take over the White House didn't rest solely on those who were inequitably coerced into a service that's been betrayed.

Insofar as "changing their minds," I'm not interested. I want Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rice/Rummy in prison. War criminals belong in prison. I don't regard that as hyperbole.

My questions were rhetorical, not irrelevant. My questions became relevant everytime anyone cast a wide net of assumptions about who serves, who doesn't and why or why not.

You raise the issue of inequity. How is it helpful to right a wrong by increasing the liklihood of the wrong being perpetrated again and again? I've no doubt this admin. considered a traditional draft and have debated it long and hard. Compromise? They have utilized the backdoor draft and our military cowers before this elitist bunch of criminals and allows it. The media conspires with them. Think they'll stand for the proposed equity that is assumed to be a reality in Rangel's reality? Never. These military elitist's know what side their bread is buttered on.

There is nothing equitable that I can see in a draft so long as its not needed and we have the bunch we have running the show.

great post.

"Part of choosing includes choosing to riot or not, choosing to revolt or not, choosing to vote or not, choosing to engage in civil disobedience or not."

Am I missing something, or does that also include... "Choosing to serve or not"?

It only means you can choose whether you want to die in a * war or a prison for deserters. I honestly am amazed at the people who are so eager to sign us all up for the shit we're trying to get everyone ELSE out of!

about the rich and powerful sharing the burden. Now it's about the middle class being selfish and amoral? So why aren't YOU sharing the burden, right now?

The argument that we can't be perfect so we shouldn't bother doing better is bankrupt, morally and ethically.

People say that "the rich will always escape a draft" so why have one?

How about "the poor will always have to serve" so why bother sharing their burden?

Pile on.

That's what I call the Tonya Harding Institute of Survival ... when the bear attacks, knee-cap your buddy to save yourself.


:eyes:

I personally don't agree that "the wealthy will always escape the draft" has to be true. I think it can be better than that ... and should be. (It can be argued that it wasn't true in WW2. We can certainly do as well as that in terms of equitable distribution of liklihood of service.)

The people you want drafted are not going to ever, ever share the load. In trying to make some point about burden-sharing, any such plan will, in fact, only further hurt the working class.

This isn't a system that needs to be, or can be, "improved" like so much bureaucratic wrangling. The draft is a light switch, you can only have it on or off. It is, and should remain, off.

In any case, it is abhorent to treat people like they belong to the government. We aren't things.

I happen to have another concern.
I have a problem with the same small group bearing the burden for this admittedly voluntary war repeatedly.
The fact is, many are National Guard and Reservists and I would dispute that this voluntary war is what they had in mind when they signed up.
I am not convinced that we have been fair to the soldiers who are there as to the level of contribution they have made.
I don't believe that this is a war to save our freedom or anything like it, but the Democratic Senator who I voted for voted for the IWR that opened the door for this war, and did not responsibly set up conditions that would minimize the damage that would befall the soldiers.
At some point we should give a damn about their physical and mental well being and distribute this responsibility more widely.
Under Rangel's proposal, I may be eligible. I have family members who would be as well.

how some think that drafting young people (kids) and sending them to war will somehow make them better people. It FUCKS people up, not just physically but mentally and emotionally. I know.....my brother wasn't the same when he came back from Vietnam.

kicking the footboard of his bed. I certainly didn't come any farther into his room than I could reach with my foot.

Safer that way.

Those who want to bring back the draft are using similar logic.

how many women will have to die from illegal abortions to wake people up?

I'm so tired of fighting the same damn battles.

would go risk their lives getting back alley abortions.

Overturning Roe v. Wade to get people interested in protecting the right to choose is like reinstating the draft to get people interested in ending the war.

Get the picture?

.... of the objects being reasoned about in the two cases. The difference is so massive as to make it apples/oranges (morally)

Why is it that these posts that so adamantly oppose the idea of a form of national service, are framed by the very limiting description of it being a means to "punish and discipline"?

punishment.

I brought up discipline because that's what so many of the pro-national service people point to as their reason for supporting it.

Granted, I haven't read every post on the topic, but it doesn't seem an overriding issue.
And, of course, I may have missed something. :shrug:

Forcing people to do something they don't want to do = slavery.

There's only one thing that will stop wars, and that's good leadership, people who know how to negotiate, and realize that war is a LAST resort, not something you unleash on a country as a pre-emptive strike.

All the draft does is force people into the military, which is WRONG. It's wrong because, as BlackVelvet04 said, it's a way of enforcing servitude. Such a thing has no place in the United States of America.

"freedom's just another word for nothing else to lose."

I'm truly amazed at how many people support forced servitude.

Do you honestly think some of us were born yesterday? There is no draft, there is not going to be a draft and you're a few bricks short if you think that the richies are going to send their kids to some Americorp National Service program where they might have to rub hands with the likes of the middle, let alone lower classes.

Draft, National Service, Draft, National Service...a Bush Admin. program name if there ever was one. Smells right up there with Clear Skies Initiative.

"National Service" to set it aside from a purely military draft.

I oppose both, btw.

and neither is clearly defined, both are useless.

I support many heated discussions about a draft. Nothing else will get us out of Iraq. And we need to get out of Iraq - NOW!

in disgust over the Iraq war and these heated discussions will spur that, when they make it past we wonks and into the general public's mind.

That just condones War............War is not normal or necessary, at least in the world I prefer to live in.

Now its is still on the books 10,000 buys your way out. Must who will go will be low-income and middle class no draft

The "National Service" garbage is nothing but a retread of what Kerry and Edwards tried to run on in 2004 and what PPI, the PNAC arm inside the DLC, proposed.

When anybody (conservative or liberal) wants to send ANYONE to war through either deceit OR force, THAT IS EVIL.

if it peels the white-trash away from Nascar for 10 minutes to get in an outrage, and peels away at the Cheeto-fascist culture we live in i'm all for it. And I'm of drafting age.

If people waking up because they know someone who got killed is a good thing, then you can help be a part of that waking up. Enlist now!

why would I enlist?

know someone whose life is at risk. You think that it the way to wake people up. Logically, you should see that joining up would help raise awareness of the issue, so join already.

neither did Rangel. in fact, you did. by urging me to sign up. funny how that works isn't it. thanks for playing.

I don't support people going there. I hope you don't sign up, but I also hope you drop the stupid idea of having a bunch of people signed up involuntarily.

they might get up off the couch if they thought they may be affected. that's my argument, which you knew. but really neither of us is going to change the other's mind. that's what makes this place so great right.

here's to you! JVS!
:toast:

God almighty could you get any more bigoted?

and, btw, I'm just getting started.

I don't hate it or those who do like it either....and yes I've watched it on occasion. So what?

cmon now. i don't hate anybody.

I pity them.

I remind you of WW2 when the rich and famous did serve in the service. The oldest Kennedy brother was killed after volunteering for a dangerous mission over Germany...The grandson of Teddy Roosevelt landed on D day in France...So many of the Major league ball players were in the service a one armed man played in the Major legues...and on and on.
Not to say that some cowards did not find a way out I know that it happened, but for the most part everyone served and we waged a war that was as moral as a war could possibly be given the nature of it.
And it was because of the draft that the military leaders had problems in Viet Nam. They found it difficult to tell moral men to kill Innocent unarmed people and that did ot fit there strategy of how to fight the Viet Cong. The Me Lie incident was a good example of that. Lt. Cally ordered his men to waste a small village of people ant most of them refused the order and so hid did the deed himself. But these same draftees squealed on him and that is how we know about it today.

Now we are engaged in a great unjust war and we are testing whether this nation can survive with a brutal military of payed soldiers that are there because they want to be. And are we not to assume that if they want to be there it is because they like killing or have grown up watching violence on the TV and want a chance to live out there fantasy of blowing someone away?
Can we long survive when every killing makes one to ten new people that hate us and want to kill us back?
Yes the answer is no unjust war, that is obvious but on the other hand I want an army of men the will say "NO SIR" when ordered to do something against the Geneva Convention and enough of them to make an unjust war imposable no mater what kind of a nut case for a president we have in office.

But do what you want it is not my future that is at stake because I am 63 and have already lived the most of my life. It is only the young that need a better way of government.

I don't agree that we should assume that they want to be there because they like killing or are living out some kind of violent fantasy. I think the majority joined for opportunity to get an education, to become United States citizens or because they think it is the best career they can achieve. One of my nephews joined because he had a family he was having trouble supporting. Fortunately he joined the Coast Guard and not the Army or Marine Corp.

And how many are sociopaths?
Is it greater in your estimation than the regular populace?
Do you know or are you just guessing?

you said we had to assume. I don't. Do you have statistics to back up your assumption?

do so, "because they like killing or have grown up watching violence on the TV and want a chance to live out there fantasy of blowing someone away?"

There is nothing inherantly dishonorable about belonging to a military. Why cast aspersion on the majority of people who volunteer to serve for honorable purpose? :shrug:

To explain the torture in prisons and some of the things I have seen in this war.
I saw a video clip some time back that showed 4 soldiers behind a low wall taking turns shooting an Iraqi man lying on the ground some distance in front of them and cheering every time they hit him and he writhed in pain.
Is that something you would do if you were drafted?

it's not so much that they liked violence to begin with as it is violence begetting violence?

Violence does beget violence for sure but there is a difference in killing someone that is about to kill you and shooting someone for the fun of it
Hat that been in WW2 with a conscripted military they would have picked the guy up and treated his wounds once he was no longer a threat to them. That is what the normal human does.

against humanity they do so because they watched violence on TV? That's what supports your "theory"? Even setting aside the alleged orders from higher up, don't you think that you're reaching?

In answer to your question,whether I would perpetrate inhuman actions against others in a war zone...I'll give you the answer most often given by soldiers, I don't know. Enlistees, draftees, both are exposed to terrible stress and horror. Some are just not cut out to handle it or handle it well. And some are not sound mentally. But you don't know who those bad soldiers are anymore than I do.

You painted the picture with a broad brush, not me.

Serving in a conscripted military that at least 2 of those 4 would not have participated in that or videotaped it for there amusement later.
I have seen the difference between the two types of military, conscripted and volunteer, and the difference is like night and day.

But they were so out numbered they dare not cross the line unless they did so our of sight of the rest of us.
They would actually cort martial people for doing things like that in a conscripted military. Now they give them a medal and we are required to thank them for there service to the country and call them heroes.
Did you ever notice that no one ever thanked the GIs that came back from WW2 for there service? It would have been considered silly then because they did there duty for there country and one does not thank one for doing his duty. A point that seems lost to most of us now.

and some very high profile parades following the Armistice of WWII.

I know, its hard to undo a bad paint job. See ya!

And there was celebrating in the street but the returning GIs were not called heroes and no one started every sentence with "thank you for your service"
You do not thank people for doing there duty especially when that duty is the killing of people and the destruction of a country.
Again a point lost in this narcissistic society.

i hit the trifecta!!

:boring: :boring: :boring:

It is for the people who do not remember the Vietnam era. It is for the people who have no clue about war and the horrors of it. It is for all those people who live in a bubble that the fear of the draft needs to be brought to.

The draft conversation and threat is an instrument to scare the sheeple into giving a damn.

Those of you who lived through it know the lessons I would hope.

But there is a whole generation of people who did not live through it and have no clue.

That is what this is about, getting those peoples attention.

I "grew up" during the Vietnam draft and opposed the draft like you do.

I changed my mind and it has nothing to do with teaching my son discipline.

..but for the life of me I don't understand how anyone who lived through the Vietnam draft and war would support a draft especially when they have a son.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2800435&mesg_id=2800435

It would appear that a great number of DU'ers understand the benefits of national service -- and the inherent responsibility to promote participation in self-governing. This is NOT a mandate to discipline. It is an understanding of the inherent social contract that embodies democracy.

Why should Rangel do all the work? Believe it, Do it, Be it and all that. What's the problem? Too old? The military has been calling back people as old as 50+. So why not go? Save a kid, draft yourself and all that. Be all that you can be, an army of one....

and it is very discernible that you did not read the scenario the poll was based upon. Your myopic view and trite response really does damage to a discourse on why service can definitely add value to a democracy.

you have drawn from it. And I sincerely invite you and anyone else who supports this idea of a draft for the sake of a dialogue to put your money where your mouth is, and serve yourselves up to as much national service as you can muster. Under the current administration of course.

edit/spell

I don't remember reading a thing about forced servitude in the constitution.

To demean the motives and principles of people with whom you disagree does not enhance your argument. Indeed, resorting to straw-men, ad hominems, and gross exaggerations seems to indicate the absence of a principled and reasoned position.

Virtually every post by the anti-draft folks have misrepresented the positions of most of us in favor of equitable national service.

I'm tired. This isn't a discussion forum - it's a food fight. :puke:

intellectual superiority thing again.

I have no respect for those whose idea of making the country a better, warm and fuzzy place is by putting others into servitude.

:shrug: No matter how many times that's debunked, it never fails to be a talking point.

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

You must not be reading and comprehending.

I absolutely detest citing personal circumstances in any disagreement or argument. It SHOULD be irrelevant (and, from a logical standpoint, it is), but the personal attacks seem unavoidable. So ...

I was one of the "lower 25%" back in the 60s. There was no way my family could afford to send me to college and, since nobody in my family had gone to college, the only course I thought I had was to take the advice of a (blue-collar neighborhood) high school counselor and apply to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Even though I was a National Merit Scholarship finalist and eligible for some scholarships, I couldn't comprehend how that would get me through college. There was no family financial resource available to me and I had no idea about working and going to college. (In my family, college was the "other side of the moon.")

So, when I talk about people who're economically coerced into military service, I know what I'm talking about.

It took less than two years at the Academy to discover that I just wasn't cut out for the military. I personally find it almost intolerable. If I were to advocate my own self-interest, I'd scream "no military!" loud and long.

After leaving the Academy, necessity became the mother of invention. I discovered how to scramble and scrimp and burn the candle at both ends to get my college degree. It wasn't easy. There was a draft. Student deferments required a full-time class load. If I were to ever get that degree, I had to keep on humping. An interruption, particularly 2 years in the Army, would probably (I thought) make getting a degree impossible. Trying to carry a full-time load and work full time to pay tuition and fees was back-breaking. I'm just not smart enough to deal with that and keep a 3.0 or better average and the scrambled course work with prerequisites that didn't quite match.

Eventually I was drafted. With a hard-fought degree and some experience in computer programming, I didn't have to hump ammo in the boonies. If I'd gone to Canada, whomever took my place might have had to ... and not get back.

Did I like it? No. Like I say, I personally find it nearly intolerable. And I didn't have it as bad as many. But I wouldn't do anything differently ... not and call myself a liberal democrat and American. It was obvious we didn't belong in Viet nam ... but not as obvious as it is now. After all, it was almost the same as Korea, right? Hindsight yields some interesting interpretations.

No ... I DO NOT believe "it makes you a man" or any of that garbage. I resent having people ascribe such detestably simple-minded crap to me. Nor is there even the slightest "I did it so you should, too" attitude on my part. I subscribe to the ethics underlying my decision then ... that we must share the risks if we expect to share the rewards! I was brought up to clean up my own room, do chores, and work part-time and summer jobs if I wanted "blue-suede shoes: like the other kids. I've worked since I was 14 years old and have always believed in sharing the load in my family, in my community, and in my nation.


Even though I make the effort to describe this and make this clear, I have little hope that it will be read and civilly comprehended. The misrepresentations and attacks will, no doubt, continue. I don't know why I waste my time.

don't agree. "that we must share the risks if we expect to share the rewards"

What rewards might that be? The rewards from attacking Iraq? Please, do tell.

can I go down to the recruit station and by myself a new spanking draftee?

Will that draftee become part of my property that I can buy and sell?

What is more, is this draftee inheritbale by my heirs?

See how stupid this service equals slavery sounds when confronted with the REALITY of slavery?

I used the word servitude.

Otherwise I might take offense.

Who the f*ck said that's the reason to bring back the draft?

And if they're not really our decisions, then why aren't they? And what are we doing to change the situation so that any decisions ARE our decisions?

I personally think there's something wrong with anyone who's not disgusted by the fact that it's the poor who are forced to pay for our apathy and self-absorption.

:applause:

I don't wanna! It's them doing it all to me and I don't own any of it! :sarcasm:

The whole WE vs. YOUR argument in the original OP creates a KKKarl type divisiveness and is destructive.

I saw him with my own eyes, in an interview. He does NOT want a draft. What he wants is for this stupid, fraudulent, craven, warmongering, to end, and for naive, innocent, recruits to stop dying in it for NOTHING.

His "draft bill" is a ploy. He said so.

I say, any ploy, any plan, any plot, ANYTHING which will work to end this Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Syria/Whoever War, is what I want.

No draft, no way!

Hell no, we won't go!!!

One, two, three, four, we don't want your rich man's war!!!!