prospect of 20 years of war.

method of "waking up Americans" since it would impact direly on his life.

If there is a draft, make no mistake, the powers that be will use it. There will be many more young men and women coming home physically and/or psychologically maimed or in body bags.

Don't use our children to make your point. I am not raising my son to be cannon fodder for your point or for Bush's war or for any reason that is not for survival of the whole world.


ON EDIT: I replied to post number 1, but for some reason it posted as replying to the original post.

And with the Democrats supporting this bullshit, it may just come back and bite them in the ass if there ever were to be a draft.

For all of the draft supporters, are you going to be marching off to war with us?

sending another generation off to war to be maimed and killed, or does it mean you don't?

Were you drafted or did you enlist?

Did you serve during a time of war or in a time of peace?

and sent my husband to this madness.... and as I said, until people actually face an actual sacrifice in this war they will continue to not care

If you find a way to get the mushy middle to the streets that does not involve a draft, I am all ears.

by the way, got shot at more timse than I care to remember...

Failure to be willing to do so makes us slaves.

Your child may grow up, but if we don't stop them from going into Iran, it'll be a deformed, black world far different and more dangerous then what we know now. And your child will most likely be a slave with nothing to look forward to then working til they drop dead. No pension, no social security, no health care, no home.

Most people would prefer to live free or die. And would want the same for their kids.

to go???

Get real. If you give them a weapon, they will use it.

The Vietnam War started when I was too young to really register it. But I remember in March, 1967, the girl next door getting a visit from two Marines in dress blues. Her husband, aged 19, had been killed in action six weeks before he was due out of Vietnam. I was just turned eleven years old.

And I remember April, 1975, when the war finally ended. I was nineteen years old. That war lasted long enough to cut short the lives of more than 58,000 young men and women.

And that was because the powers that were had the DRAFT. Had they not had a draft, the war would have ended far sooner because very few young men were signing up to join the service. Many that did sign up did so because they were about to be drafted anyway and they wanted a choice about which branch of the service they would enter.

If you want to make that kind of sacrifice, then go enlist.

Don't sacrifice my son and his generation. They will have the opportunity to decided whether or not to make that sacrifice themselves.

I would much rather starve this beast of the cannon fodder they need then give them the freedom to rampage through the "pantry" of our children.

I sincerely doubt that giving the neocon war mongers an unlimited military will stop them from their oil questing, world conquering imperialism.

that the draft got the mushy middle to the streets, and there was a rebellion INSIDE the US military that some think actually shortered the war. By the way, by your logic next war will be faught by Mercenaries, not a national military.

If your husband has been sent over to Iraq (and I'm sincerely sorry if he has), then that was because he made the decision to enlist in the service. YOU would take that decision away from our children.

As for sacrifices, we are already making many sacrifices for having the neocons in charge of this country. Our freedoms, our jobs, our standards of living, our security... they're gone.

The "mushy middle" isn't mushy. It's terrified of losing everything. Their voices are not being heard.

God almighty! The number of people who protested during the Republican Convention in New York and those who have protested in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of thousands. And not just in this country, but all over the world.

Did their voices get heard????

NO

. They were ignored as if they had never been there.

These people believe that they are invincible. They don't need to curry to the demands of the "mushy middle" or the VAST MAJORITY! They will take our children and use them up. Then they will come for the rest of us. One group at at time.

And you would give them access to the least politically protected group of people there are in this country. The ones who have just reached voting age. The ones who do not have any political power behind them at all.

Shameful.

People who would use unwilling others to make their points are no better than those who would use unwilling others to fight their wars.

I KNOW that the mushy middle does not care for the war, they really give a shit, and for relatives, on the line... so far six of them... care to continue this line?

Anyhow, you want to change things, hundreds of thousands will NOT be enough, you need work stoppages, you need MILLIONS marching and that will NOT happen until people are PERSONALLY AFFECTED... if you have a better method...I am all ears

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport, and this is what people have forgotten.

Oh and one more thing... service to one's country is NOT dishonorable... and a NATIONAL SERVICE would be good for this nation. But that is a whole different kettle of fish.

What will it take to stop the bushistas... read about Romania and Russia... that is what it took... a whole population MOBILIZED.

We are FAR FROM THAT... very far from it... and I fear it will still take time... though we are in pre-revolutionary times... but given what I am readying from some of the folks here in DU... nobody is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to change the dynamics, yes that includes death. Until people do... that change that all can talk about will not come.

Let's see. The first "advisors" were sent to Vietnam in 1962, I believe. The draft was in effect from the beginning. Kennedy was assassignated in 1963. Johnson immediately escalated the war and drafted more and more young men.

Nixon came to the Presidency in 1969 with his plan to end the war and promptly escalated it further with more and more young men drafted. (I've seen estimates that more than two million --2,000,000 -- American military personnel having served in Vietnam, most of them draftees. No one in the Pentagon seems to know just how many served their... you know their record keeping.)

Protests started in earnest in 1967. The protests gained more and more ground to its peak in 1969. (Then, there was the Kent State incident.)

In August, 1974, Nixon resigned and Ford became President. And the war continued on.

The war did not end until 1975 when the North Vietnamese overran Saigon forcing the U.S. out of Vietnam.

It wasn't the draft that ended the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese.

The protesting of the war merely made Nixon and Kissinger take most of the war underground. They expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia (with tragic consequenses for Cambodia.)

The draft was in place since World War II (and this was the second war since that one to use unwilling young men forced into the military.

The draft did not end either war. It fed the war machine. Four Presidents had and used the draft to feed the war machine in Vietnam.

I don't think you are old enough to remember the draft. It was ended several years after the war was over. It is dead. Let's keep it that way.

Find another way to wake the "mushy middle."

the first advisor's went in during the Eisenhower administration They WERE Volunteer, in fact no Draftee formation entered the field until AFTER the death of JFK

The Draft was in effect since 1941 (It never stopped, until 1973)

The war technically ended after the Paris Agreements, and with the beginning of Vietnamization in 1973

The 1975 overrun of Saigon was the end of the war, there was no draft any longer

And by the way, there WAS a revolt inside the US Military where thousands of men disobeyed orders during NAM and some historians believer that it greatly contributed to the end inf of the war (and the current resistance by the bushistas to enact one)

You see, I do see an advantage to a draft, a national mobilization. You get me another method that WORKS and gets everybody mobilized and I am ALL ears.

were listed in 1957. But Vietnam was barely a blimp on the public radar at that time. Some historians state the beginning of the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War) began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964.

While no more young men were drafted after 1973, there were still draftees in the military until sometime in 1975.

I did confuse my dates. Jimmy Carter gave amnesty to all who dodged the draft one day after his inaguration. The actual drafting of soliers ended shortly after the Paris Peace Accord in 1973.

The draft ended in 1973, but the requirement for young men to register with the Selective Service did not end until 1975. That requirement was reinstated in 1980.

and have a general national mobilization that will NOT include a draft I am all ears.. by the by I AM a trained historian, shiny degree and all... and the Vietnam war started during the Eisenhower Administration... it got hot and in the radar screen after ton kin, but IT STARTED under Eisenhower

:applause:

...but quick...That or the bushista's will be thrown out on their ears...

you want see a draft. Even in the Dems retake Congress. Which they won't, if this kind of talk becomes common among them.

war with a draft than without one. Pardon me, but this is insane.

First, the Repukes are not dumb enough to reinstate the draft. They'll simply scale back their plans for a time, a strategic retreat. Dems will get the blame for trying to reinstate the draft.

Second, no matter how it is sliced, the draft is indistinguishable from slavery. Since when has that been a Democratic cause?

Third, it is hypocrisy of the very highest order. One of the finest achievements of the progressive movement was forcing an end to the draft. And we would sacrifice that for political gain? If Americans have not woken up to the prospects of war, it is because they are not hurting enough or not educated enough. But do we, the progressives and liberal, the Democrats, have the right to inflict this pain? What then makes us better than the Republicans?

And fourth, as I said, it is easier to fight a war with tons of soldiers than a few. Vietnam would never have happened if Lyndon Johnson hadn't had the power of the draft at his command.

Want to lose big time in 2006. Support Rangel's call for a draft.

up until the war hits them where it hurts the most.

Voting "yes" is exactly what I should have done because you're right: it is the only thing that will wake people up.

I guess my gut told me to vote no because I can't imagine any worse feeling than knowing that my three stepsons are all of eligible draft age. I couldn't bear having to see them off. My wife worries about them all the time the possibility that the draft will be reinstated.

So, my heart said "Vote no."

....

50.0% Yes
45.0% No
5.0% Undecided

By the way I voted yes.

yes because I believe it would end this pre -emptive war crap...then the other part of me is the mother of an 19 yr old just finishing up his first year of college and another 2 yrs away from starting and I do not want my kids in this crap.

It's delusional to believe that the powers that be won't exempt their own offspring and, truly, they don't give a flying fuck about ours.

only draft the diehard Young Republicans who are filled with bloodlust for killing Arabs but, somehow, just don't want to enlist due to, uh, "other priorities". They voted for Bush. They call anyone who disagrees with Bush "unpatriotic". But. They're too busy partying to join the war effort. Their support is just braying talk.
Gotta love that Young Republican who insisted he was "fighting the war over here."
OK. Try fighting it "over there" with 20 lbs. of gear in the broiling sun.
Punks.

DRAFT REPUBLICANS - SEND THEM OFF TO WAR!

That will show the world how "patriotic" they really are.

gone down... (try sixty to seventy)

:-)

Maybe it will wake up some of the apathetic public.

either thinks it's ok to deprive individuals of their freedom, or is deluded into thinking the rich will have to go to and that will change things.

Sorry, wrong on all counts.

And the debate that would ensue, not for an actual draft.

I stay off of them.

is some form of self sacrifice, personal sacrifice, and if you have a better idea for that sacrifice, I am all ears. As a wife of a USN Chief (ret) who also served I can tell you right now... most Americans don't know what this is taking away from the very few... and they are just grumbling bout them prices at the pump. It will take REAL PERSONAL sacrifice to make this war real for the mushy middle. It also forces the hand of the repukes... and by the way... I am sorry you cannot see this.

The middle is not asleep. It simply has no voice in the media and no representation in Congress.

I have many relatives who have served in all branches except the Marines. I live in a state that has sacrificed many young men to this current war, and many more to Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

The draft is not about sacrifice. It's about forced labor, slavery.

that is why the mushy middle is still watching the teevee, dredging from day to day and truly not caring about what is going on.

Look from the point of view of many who HAVE SENT folks over there, when we talk to folks who don't have anybody directly by blood over there, they don't want to even hear it. When the kids come back, nobody wants to listen to them. Oh and one more thing, during Nam the country was changed by the experience.... after that no conflict has seen ANY significant change in the country. I am not making this up, but this is an observation from sociologists as well.

You want to believe that the mushy middle cares... fine... I KNOW FOR A FACT they don't give a shit.

So once again, tell me of ONE way to make the mushy middle sacrifice for the war many of them voted for when they voted for the Bushistas (Yes I know about Diebold before you mention them)... but many of them did... so tell me how do you want to make the mushy middle take up to the streets... you see... they have no voice, what are they waiting to get one?

Democracy ain't a spectator sport... but so far it looks to me that many want all the benefits without all the sacrifices required to live in a democracy... oh and by the way... a Draft will be a hell of a wake up call... oh and one more thing... no professional military wants a draft for a multitude of reasons, but when you have senior NCOs and some officers now openly in favor of a draft... you know there is a problem.

By the way, been there done that, before you tell me are you gonna go out there to die... and my nieces are in the line of fire if there is a draft... just in case you wonder.

that they do.

When the small town I was living in last year buried one of their own, the whole county mourned him, not just the people who knew him.

You want to believe they don't care, go right ahead. But your nieces will NOT be drafted. My son will, only, he'll enlist first. We come from a long line of sacrificers. We strongly support our military and we know what it means to send our relatives into battle.

Dems who pretend that middle America doesn't care do the entire party a disservice, creating battle lines and slandering a people they obviously know nothing about. This single act of painting so many with such a broad brush leads to the charges of elitism that drag the party down at election time.

Until Dems begin reaching out to understand the middle...well, if you like how things are now, keep the attitude you have. Hope tht works out for you.

P.S. Less than 1/2 the country voted for Bush. He did not win. Stop blaming the war on voters. Put the blame where it belongs.

my brother in law went to Nam and Gulf War one'


I was shot at during that nice war on drugs, you know the very peaceful war on drugs, that one....

Now for a fact, middle america does not care... that is a fact... if they did.. where the hell are they?

And as I said, don't tell me about Diebold, I know abuot Diebold, very well... what will take Middle America to take to the streets? Oh and by the by... becuase of the problems with the Dems I am now registered as an indie...want to try that again?

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

No deferments for future Cheneys and Limbaughs....no choice 'rear with the gear' posts for future Bushes and Quayles. EVERYONE's fat will be in the fire, everyone gets rotated in and out of combat if and when it's occurring.

No, I'm not keen on a draft. This is actually a brilliant play by Rangel, it forces the GOP to face up to their indulgences. A draft would never pass, but this forces the debate.

they'll be able to make sure those parts aren't deleted.

Delusional. Truly. :eyes:

Roll them eyes all you want, Rangel's calling their bluff.

Sorry. This is a no-brainer.

No need for a brain when one's knee is jerking, anyway.

Forcing someone to live where you say, do what you say, eat what you say, and stay as long as you say, is slavery.

Look it up.

The draft was abolished, and rightly so. Rangel agrees with EVERYTHING you say, thinkingwoman. I agree with everything you say. This bill is about much more than just gut feelings.

Rangel proposed a draft which removed all safety nets for everybody. He wrote the bill so that no one who wanted to be back in Washington after next year would vote for it. If you haven't been paying attention, the GOP is masterful at beating the 'support the troops' drum while quietly backing away from REALLY supporting those troops. This unpassable draft bill is all smoke and mirrors, and it puts the GOP's feet to the fire for the first time. If they vote for it, it'll mean that they want their constituents to be forced into service. If they don't, then it means they don't really support this war after all. It's actually quite masterful.

but there's yet another round of hysterical outbursts over nothing.

Rangel has absolutely no intention of anyone getting drafted, and this was partly a gambit to embarass the GOP and partly a message to his constituents. Everyone in Harlem knows about the poverty draft, and Rangel was telling them he knows about it, too. We tend to forget that congresscritters talk to their districts, not to the rest of us.

Can't think of one congresscritter who would dare go back home and campaign on actually voting for a draft (and neither can Rangel).

Besides, Rangel's draft bill is old news. Wasn't it two years ago he first brought it up?

I AM paying attention. Rangel's way is a trap of unfathomable proportions.

All the repukes have to do is add riders to reinstante wavers and pass the bill as a Democratic idea that Repukes are being oh so bipartisan about.

"If they don't, then it means they don't really support this war after all."

If you think that's how voting against a draft is going to play out with the electorate, I'm not sure what to say to you about it.

The public HATES the draft, the only ones for it think its a weapon to use againt war as both a galvanizer of the populace and preventing the powerful for starting a war with their children on the line. They are likely correct on point one but I think the second point is dangerously wishful thinking.

Do people really think Bush would care if his daughters were drafted and sent to war? That he would stop making war? Shit it would be better PR for him that MIssion Accomplished.

said to get one of the twins in the service... the fact they have not done it, speaks volumes

suddenly faced with the possibility of their sons and daughters being forced to be bit players in this sham. Part of the reason why the '60's had so much discontent and opposition to the war was the very draft itself. The armed forces are already lopsided socially and economically as it is, this bill addresses that and makes it fair.

Rangel has written the bill to be so unpalatable that no one would pass it in their right minds. It's called politics, it's what they do.

Rangels' on our side. Why would a man who vote like this suddenly institute a draft? You need to trust him, see below.

:shrug:

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.

is about cowering in the face of adversity and allowing the status quo to continue.

The only way to change the dynamic is to make Americans face the prospect of seeing THEIR kids fighting in Syria, Iran etc and for the CHILDREN to face the same.

That doesn't make it the right opinion, or an accurate assessment of reality.

I currently do not have children and I am nearing the end of my personal eligibility.

I can't tell someone else that they have to bear the risk or their children do. Not when its compulsory service on the line with injury or death a real possibility just because it may be beneficial to my political outlook. That is madness.

The draft never stopped a war. It shortened one.

Rangel's bill comes far closer than almost any. Males and females. Everyone between 18 and 42 years of age. Civilian service in lieu of military service where capacity is met/exceeded.

Eliminate the abominable "don't ask - don't tell" and it'll be just right.

I don't believe in compulsory service, military or otherwise.

... as part and parcel of living in any community worth being called a 'community.' In any such community, the option of leaving is always available, unlike the options available to slaves. I've heard this obscene hyperbole for over 40 years. I'm a draftee and Viet Nam veteran. Altogether too many of the people who treated me with overt or covert hostility were possessed of this 'convenient' attitude - posturing as they washed their hands of the responsibilities of living in a (purportedly) democratic society. At the time, I was strangely reminded of the internment of the Japanese. The attitude of 'wrongness' didn't stop people from exploiting the opportunity to grab up their lands and businesses at 'fire sale' prices - or at tax auctions. Likewise, draftees saw people happy to take their cars (and car payments) off their hands, console their girlfriends, and happily take the jobs (and promotions) they were no longer around to contest. Since the reality is that we're having to live with a military that's stationed in over 120 countries, it's long past time everyone had 'skin in the game' - if we ever have any hope of getting out of the game.

With that non sequitar rant you just laid down? You have to be kidding.

It's loathsome to hear people rhetorically claim that national service is somehow comparable to the inhuman, despicable enslavement of human beings that befouls our history as a nation and continues to weigh upon the descendants and inheritors of those so disenfranchised of the most basic of their human rights and dignities. The temerity to pretend for even a moment that there's any rational comparison between slavery and the experience of those who currently or formerly served in our military is an abomination - trivializing one of the most shameful practices in this country for the self-serving goal of escaping both the moral responsibility for and personal participation in national service that arguably has or can benefit all in some way and demonstrably is perpetuated by all, if only in remaining in this country and paying taxes. Yes! I damned sure will call that obscene - no non sequitur about it!

It's bad enough when we use the terms "wage slave" or "kitchen slave" - as bad as that is in trivializing the hideous inhumanity of slavery, but to intentionally equate it to national service (in a military or civilian role) is an outright corruption of language and an insult to those whose ancestors suffered the appalling oppression of real slavery.

not only is that hyperpole, but it borders on idiotic.

While those who are in the service are bound to rigid rules and regulations, I would hardly call those rules and regulations inhumane.

*sheesh*

Hi, Baby :hi:

Slavery is involuntary servitude to another. Military service (and national service) is service to the nation, including one's self. 'Slavery' didn't allow escape; people who don't want to serve can leave. (I wouldn't stop anyone from leaving.) I'm an advocate of Universal National Service - everyone (male, female, gay, straight, etc.) required to invest 18 months to 4-5 years in SOME form of national service - military, public health, national lands, VISTA, Peace Corps, etc.

Democracy isn't a spectator sport or entertainment; it's either participatory or it isn't at all.

changing masters doesn't matter.

Forcing someone to live and do things not of their choosing is the opposite of freedom. No amount of spin and pretty talk changes that.

As for democracy being participatory, yes, that's true. But when somebody else dictates the form of participation, it stops being democracy and starts being tyranny.

what is that if not bonded labour, serfdom or outright slavery. When servicemen and women are given the choice of re-enlisting or spending 100% of the rest of their term in Iraq that is coercion.

... and that a 'selective' draft is far more inequitable than Universal National Service. It is disgusting and appalling to me that anyone would regard a mercenary/coerced military or a 'selective' draft as somehow more consistent with our democratic values than Universal National Service (which includes military and civilian service sectors). I cannot but regard that stance as the kind of elitism and 'screw you - got mine' that infests the current Republican Party. The Civil War era notion that the affluent could pay another person to do their 'service' for them makes me nauseous. Even more nauseating is the notion that we offer citizenship as a 'reward' for those from impoverished nations if they enlist and serve in our military - but feel no congruent obligation ourselves. It's akin to the latter days of the corrupt Roman Empire. There is no question in my mind that our national propensity for military adventurism and predation is fed by an attitude of 'no skin in the game' - a blatantly antidemocratic attitude.

What a bunch of Orwellian bullshit.

The stop-loss program, the selective draft and universal service are ALL at odds with our democratic values.

Go figure. :dunce:

"Take out the trash!"
"It's not MY trash!"
"Do it anyway."

:silly:

What do you think they'll have in 60 years with no social security, pension, health care, homes?

What do you think they'll have in 10 years with no jobs, civil liberties?

how will reinstating the draft prevent all that?

It won't, of course, which is my point. This idea that the rich will somehow have to go and that will make the powerful rethink their strategy is so far past delusional that we need a new word for it.

as a draftee I think you are overstatring this. By the way, as somebody who HAS served (in somebody else's military) and sent a husband to this insanity, I can tell you RIGHT NOW the only thing that will wake up the mases is to have to pay a price. So far, they have not...

as is Rangel.

And I am entitled to mine.

I believe that before we undertake a serious military engagement/war - there HAS to be a national dialogue as to whether or not the particular conflict is one that Americans believe that they themselves, or their loved ones would be willing to commit to. For example, my father was in college in the forties. World War II was expanding - and my father left college to enlist - before there was a draft - because he saw the cause as very important - and he believed that a draft was coming, and he might as well move first. While there had been years of isolationist beliefs, there came a point (even before Pearl Harbor - but esp after Pearl Harbor... and I don't know the exact date in relationship tp Pearl Harbor that the draft was enstated) when there became a deep commitment to the war and the war effort.

I would suggest that the next time we engage in what would predictably become a more than three year - active combat (rather than peace keeping for part of the time) war - that if the whole nation had to take stock as to whether or not they were willing to take the fight on themselves - there would be a much more serious inspection of : intel vs propoganda, much more taking stock of whether there were a threat worth fighting, and a national consensus based on willingness to make that level of commitment - if national service were a requirement - as it is in many European countries.

Going into any war should be taken that seriously. For me it isn't about "getting more people against going to war" - I am not a pacifist (though my Mother is) - I do believe there are times when military campaigns are needed. However I am frightened by how superficially both the public, and its elected representatives seem to be when considering going to war. If we are going to put our selves, our children or grandchildren on front lives, than we had best - as a whole country - determine that we ourselves are ready to go, or to risk our children, grandchildren, cousins, neices and nephews to serve.

Yes, indeedy, if everyone had to risk themselves or their children for the next war for the gas pump, or political faith, or believing in scarey monsters because their neighbor or boss or uncle said so, or just hatred because "they" killed some of us and we need to strike back-maybe we would consider it a little more.

I keep asking the question is the PURPOSE of our military to "give Iraq freedom." No one EVEN asks this question in America!!!!!!!! Even supposing that's what they were doing-which it is not. I don't think that's what our military is FOR. It's a sham war being fought for some reason-war profiteering mostly-that has nothing to do with yours or my safety or the REAL purpose of a military. I'm not going to die for Iraq. I'm not going to ask my children or your children to die for Iraq-so what the hell are we doing there? And I will repeat that with Iran. If you have a real threat-then yes-I would defend my country and EXPECT my children to do the same. Of course. But see here we are talking about the SHAM military that has existed in America for at least forty years-and these WARS have nothing to do with safety or freedom. So OF course we don't WANT a draft. But was it worth it in World War 2? Most would say yes. (not all I know) So yes, maybe if your son or daughter were going to go marching off to Iran in Spring '07 maybe, maybe we would do everything possible-including sedition to stop the folly. That's the point. It's a big one. And if their is no draft-the sham wars continue-and the poorest among us will pay the price for our Democracy and the looting of our national treasury will continue.

But the point is, how are you and Rangel going to insure that EVERYBODY'S children and grandchildren will be compelled to pay this price on a uniform rather than selective basis?

What guarantee can you give that it will not be Black or other minority children paying that price on a disproportionate basis?

What guarantee can you give that Bush's children and grandchildren will not get cosy assignments in Washington DC while the children of the poor will be overseas getting their asses shot at?


You know as well as I do that one or two Republican tokens will be sent off to war and that the Pukes will make a big show of it. One might get a hangnail or some other minor injury and then get the Medal of Honor while a Black youngster will display far greater bravery and never get a medal though he'll deserve it more. Furthermore, he'll get his ass crippled and have hell to pay in order to collect disability benefits. Those are the type of cases that the Republicans will ignore.

How do we know that this will not happen again?

answered before I would support any such piece of legislation. For it to be a national dialogue - as I described it would HAVE to be a national commitment - not one that allows loopholes and preference (for assignments and 'honorable discharges', awards, and access to health care). Your point is well taken.

my grandfather gave up a deferment to enlist in WWII. He served proudly in the Navy and then returned home to a long happy life. I come from a long line of military volunteers. We're an extremely pro-military family and I come by my strong anti-draft stance honestly--I learned it from three male relatives who served.

They all say it MUST be a choice. There's just no sacrifice in forced labor.

They told me something else as well...that America will never need a draft if America is threatened. People of all ages would take up arms to defend our nation (just as the Iraqis have done to defend theirs). Drafts are needed to fight wars of choice, not necessity. I tried to argue with that last part citing WWII, but my grandfather gave me that look that said "hey little girl, I'm the one that went and I know more than you." ;-)

That being said, I completely agree that a national dialogue must begin about war, and that dialogue must grow until we all are heard and can no longer be ignored. I welcome the national dialogue. But I believe with all of my heart and soul that Rangel's method is the wrong way to bring it about, and will only lead to more suffering.

I honestly do not believe the majority of the public is superficial about the war. Kool-aid drinkers get a lot of media airtime, but they are NOT in the majority. I do believe, however, that our elected officials are superficial about it all. They don't represent us. If they ever did, it must have been a long time ago.

The problem we have, as a people and a nation, is that our democracy is broken. We do not have representatives or elected officials who listen because they do not have to...their gerrymandered districts and election fraud will return them to office again and again. Our tax dollars carry them for the rest of their lives.

I, personally, have nothing against national service and understand that it works well in many countries. But, in the end, required service conflicts with freedom. It just does. My ancestors chose freedom more than 225 years ago, and fought for it in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

I would dishonor their sacrifice, and their memory, if I turned my back on the principle of freedom.

Peace.

Especially about the point per if the US was under attack that all would enlist. Indeed I believe there was a spike of enlistments in the pre Afghanistan Invasion - as it was percieved to be an action against those who attacked us on 9-11.

I haven't paid much attention to the specifics of Rangle's proposal - and am not so much backing it, but I have been bothered by what I still assert is a fairly superficial national discussion of what is risked (the lives of our future generation) and whether a particular venture raises to the level that we would risk our own to fight it; and if not, why are we pursuing such a policy. Your point of "war of choice" is perhaps something that needs to become part of the national lexicon, rather than just a progressive term (where it is read the most.)

It is interesting to note, that I think that a national dialogue is finally beginning in the questioning of this war, in part because the rationale has shifted so dramatically from before the war and now - and as more and more folks are personally touched by the effects of the war (in terms of loved ones, friends, etc.) It seems to me that the dialogue has come about on a much more broad level than what I understand it to have been during the Vietnam War at this point in conflict. And the beginnings of this dialogue are what I believe are somewhat restraining Bushco from pursuing the additional conflicts that their rhetoric indicate that they have been itching to undertake (specifically Syria and Iran, but periodically also North Korea.) Perhaps this era will lead to a maturing of us as a people - including a growing awareness of how the form of democracy that currently is our system, does seem broken. Early this morning I chose hope, though I recognize that realization of that hope - if indeed we are talking 'era' - may take quite a long time.

I support a draft. Once a draft is considered seriously, there would be an absolute outcry from everyone with kids that are of age.

If this is the same legislation that was talked about a year or so ago, it would eliminate a lot of the deferment qualifications. I know that there will be those in high places and with enough money that will still avoid serving, but more of those folks that haven't been voicing their opinions one way or the other about Iraq and the new talk about Iran, will suddenly become very noisy.

If this is indeed Rangel's same legislation, then I am 1000% for a vote to be called on this, today.

Do you support Congressman Rangel's legislation to reinstate the military draft if the U.S. remains in Iraq?
Results since MARCH 23RD, 2006



Yes 46.0%

No 50.0%

Undecided 3.0%

Yes 48.0%

No 48.0%

Undecided 2.0%

:thumbsup:

I admit it. This would probably effectively bring a lot of republicans to their senses. At the same time, my son would be at risk and that terrifies me. :scared: :scared: :scared:

It might bring people to their senses, but I am not willing to give up my sons lives to prove a point. No matter how much they say it will be fair, you can bet that plenty will weasel out.



eta-
No 64%
Yes 34%

people. In WWII our grandfathers were drafted, our grandmothers had to go to work, and everyone had to sacrifice something.

Now, most people oppose the war already, but the ones who support it are sacrificing nothing. They are the only ones who would be affected by a reinstatement of the draft, and I'm draft age.

It would be a death sentence to any Dem who voted for it, but if Rummy said he really needed it to continue his "successful" war campaigns, and the current Pub majority were FORCED to vote for it, I'd LOVE THE IDEA!

We already have a back-door draft. Let's make it real so there will be debate about stopping the occupation.

Yes 54.0%

No 44.0%

Undecided 1.0%

I just voted and while it shows that the majority said 'yes', it does not indicate how many have actually voted or whether there are repeat votes

does anyone know the actual numbers and if it is restricted to one person-one vote?

Frat boys up front.

:dunce:

?

a kid with cystic fibrosis, that kind of major medical conditions. With modern medical care you can even have a diabetic in the service, though not front line.. but in the service nonetheless

I remember hearing of situations where some sons of wealthy elitists evaded the draft by either studying overseas or by having doctors fake medical conditions. But then, there were others who took up drugs in order to fail the medical tests.

It's a sure bet that this will happen again.

but something like cystic fibrosis cannot be faked... wheelchair, congested (permanently) lungs that need to be cleared every day... that one cannot be faked

But after reading the arguments for voting yes to make the repukes put up or shut up...I vote YES.

and yes, I am draftable.

we are to remain, DRAFT NOW... the back of the military is snapping (and it would wake the masses too)

It's more than just a scary stunt. I would never support a draft that would lead to more war and more killing. Schadenfreude is not worth killing for.

Ending the draft was a great thing done by Nixon.

But, if you want to fully re-live the 60s, then re-institute the draft. Then watch how big the anti-war protest gets!

:popcorn:

Lets get the freak out of Iraq and not send our boys over there!!!

:argh: Democrats can attack Bush on corruption and traitorous acts and he wants a freakin DRAFT!!!

He's NOT going to get elected!!!

to the people who matter to Dubya.

Which this is.

Think about it: How many sons of halfway prominent Republicans have died? How many rich people? There was Tillman, who was in the good war; there might be a couple in Iraq, and that's about it.

Guys, Bush isn't even asking these people to give up a little bit of their tax cuts to pay for this war. You'd think that if war was so wonderful, they'd be champing at the bit to hand their tax cuts back. Nope. Not even that. In fact, they want New Ones.

All the Americans who are dying there are working-class, many of them Democrats. Same deal with WIAs and paying the bills.

Throw some of this cost on Republicans...and all of a sudden the war's not such a great thing.

Do you support Congressman Rangel's legislation to reinstate the military draft if the U.S. remains in Iraq?


Results since MARCH 23RD, 2006
Yes 51.0%

No 47.0%

Undecided 1.0%

:cry:

Has anyone freaking out over this actually heard him speak on it, or understand what he's up to? He's flat-out told us what he's doing.

Just curious.

no exceptions, everybody serves

And I bet a lot of other DUers have read it as well.

no exceptions (well there are some that will have to be there, such as some medical conditions such as CF), and for conscioentous objectors, here is your medic bag...

:shrug: Democracy isn't a spectator sport.

...and actually knowing what you're talking about on this thread.

:toast:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752:


The best draft bill I've seen yet. :shrug:

I can't stand it when people don't do their homework.

ONE: Applied fairly, the neo-cons, survivalists, libertarians, market-monkeys and other "us-vs.-them" types will have to serve, giving them another think about what it means to arm up and face a real or potential enemy.

TWO (and more importantly): The military of this country will be made up of a real cross-section of American citizens, with all their natural inventiveness and suspicion of authority. A much better rank-and-file than the mix of disenfranchised poor, gung-ho numbnuts and private mercenaries we've got now.

to fight *'s imperial wars for Haliburton. :wtf:

These bible waving, beer drinking, BMW driving rich inheritance brats that think war is so cool, would be singing a different tune when their ass is handed an M-16 and sent out on patrol.

Bush would be strung up by his neck by these same boot kissing brain dead hero worshippers that don't know a photo opportunity from disgust if we had the draft.

You would never see a war end so fast or no others started.

The only other legislation I would be in favor of even more is an intelligence test of political facts prepared by a panel of impartial experts that had to be passed before you could vote.

That would eliminate 80% of Republicans from voting. But reinstating the draft would be almost as good.

Rangel's legislation is a good start, even if all it does is strike the debate. I have kids who would be drafted if this legislation were to pass, so I am not uninvested in this. If my kids are drafted I will volunteer. I come from a family with a history of pacifism so I am familiar with the debate surrounding this.

This proposal needs to be modified into a National Service Program with absolutely no exemptions from service. Upon passage of NSP legislation every american citizen would be required to participate in 2 years of service regardless of age. If not Able Bodied there are innumerable jobs in the military that do not require AB status if not on the battlefield then in support positions. Beyond that there are unlimited opportunities for service to the country/community for those who will only accept CO status (you can always go to jail). Civilian Public Service is a historical example of this, in other words we have already done this!

With every american directly invested in military service either personally or through relatives i can't think of a better way to assure an informed debate about what war as an absolute last resort means. Instead of the pathetic non-debate about the decision to start the Iraq war. You got a better idea?

(rant on) As a voluteer firefighter i have a pet peeve about the (non) involvement/investment of americans in their community. Approx. 85% of this country is protected with volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel. The people that save your sorry ass by dragging you out of your burning house or wrecked car are often volunteers! did you know that? Do you even know if your local Emergency Services is volunteer? Go find out, go join them, do it now, because volunteer emergency services organizations across the country are running out of people participating, everybody is too busy. (rant off)

I served for ten years as a voluneteer medic in Tijuana Mexico... why? My local service does not have a volunteer service and I needed to pay back that country for letting my dad come in after WW II... the hitler travel plan. So I know exactly where you are coming from... and I applaud volunteers.

Unfortunately beyond dispatch I cuold not do anything anymore these days... one of them service injuries... patient made it.

Oh and welcome to DU.

:hi: :hi:

(Now... PLEASE don't run afoul of our rules and embarass me.) :silly:

I appreciate your service and commit as a volunteer firefighter. A better solution would be to pay all emergency personnel by cutting the "defense" budget. That way we can all save lives too!

:hi:

There are too few carrying the weight of the needs of the community these days. I believe that's the reason why communities are just,...weak,...unsafe,...shattered: people have become too self-absorbed and are failing to invest in the interest of the whole.

Growing up, practically EVERY able body participated in such simple tasks as keeping on eye on the neighborhood kids and reporting bad behavior (which was a HUGE incentive for us all to behave). Such simple stuff, such small but worthy investments.

I would support a NSP with an elective to either do military or civilian service.

Do you support Congressman Rangel's legislation to reinstate the military draft if the U.S. remains in Iraq?
Results since MARCH 23RD, 2006

Yes 50.0%

No 48.0%

Undecided 0.0%

This really separates "liberals" from shifted-to-the-right "moderates."

*****Republicans college kids won't fight in the war but

"I‘m fighting—we‘re fighting the culture war here, but I‘m also supporting the battle that‘s raging in Iraq. """"



Jason Mattera is the spokesman for the Young America‘s Foundation, which is a conservative group.









MATTHEWS: OK.

Let me ask you about—both you gentlemen, but starting with you, Jason. What are you guys—what do people your age think about the war in Iraq right now, as it is going, as we‘re fighting this to try to get the Iraqis to take over the fighting? What‘s the view of your group?

MATTERA: I think my group is supporting President Bush on this matter. We‘re looking to defeat the terrorists.

MATTHEWS: Where? In Iraq.

MATTERA: In Iraq. Of course in Iraq.

And there—you won‘t see on college campuses, as you did in the 1960s, these rampant protests, these obstruction of classroom, these—the book burning, everything that went down. I think kids are more conservative today. And I think groups such as the Young America‘s Foundation help that—help mold that conservatism.

MATTHEWS: Would you like to enlist them? You‘re 21. You‘re eligible to serve. Would you like to serve in this war?

MATTERA: I‘m fighting the battle for ideas. I‘m fighting...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m just asking a particular question. Would you like to enlist in this war?

MATTERA: No, because I‘m fighting a separate battle. I‘m fighting—we‘re fighting the culture war here, but I‘m also supporting the battle that‘s raging in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: Well, what kind of people should fight in this war, if not you?

MATTERA: Those who want to, those who want—who feel the desire, who have the passion to go over to Iraq. I have many friends who are in Iraq myself, people from my church, people who I graduated with.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MATTERA: They went to go fight over there. I‘m here. I‘m fighting

the culture war right now. Both need to be fought and both need to be won

by conservatives.

MATTHEWS: Paul Hackett, a Democratic candidate for Congress who just lost that close election in Ohio, referred to the president as a chicken hawk, somebody who supports war, but doesn‘t fight it. What do you think of that phrase, chicken hawk?

MATTERA: I don‘t like the phrase chicken hawk.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8870860/

:kick:

I understand the theory behind what he's trying to do, but why should my boys die in any unjust war? I'm sorry. I cannot support this.

War is hell, America voted for war, it is time for them to sacrafice. It is time to put some skin in the fight. Make them think twice next go around.

and I will not let him be used to make a point. If any of you think wealthy families wouldnt do everything in their power to stop their children from going to war...than you must be missing what is happening to this country.

Do you support Congressman Rangel's legislation to reinstate the military draft if the U.S. remains in Iraq?

Results since MARCH 23RD, 2006


Yes 39.0%

No 59.0%

Undecided 0.0%

cheap... Theres a wall with all their names... Protestors died to stop the draft... I lived through it and you ask why I'm against the
draft... Even in WWII they used our mens lives cheaply...

I don't care what Rangel's bill is the Republicans want a draft...

and they are getting ready for Iran to draft...

This is WRONG!!!

Every person who voted for yes grab a gun and get ready to go...
and if you think Rangel in Washington is going to give a hoot...
You'd be sadly mistaken!!!

1. No educational, family, hardship or any other deferments.
2. No medical deferments except in cases of complete disability that prevents the petitioner from performing any task.
3. If a child is called and he/she fails to report, one of his parents will take his place.

I want to make it impossible for a rich Republican to get his/her child out of the draft.

He's diabetic? Fine, the Tobyhanna Army Depot has lots of maintenance positions open and diabetics can turn wrenches as well as anyone.

She's confined to a wheelchair? No problem! There's a computer right there and lots of paperwork to type into it.

He's an heir to Prescott Bush? Uhh...well, here's your jackboots and a copy of Hank Williams Jr's "Family Tradition"...

She's in school? No problem, it will still be there if she gets back.

Take away all the ways Republicans have to keep their progeny out of a draft, including shipping them to Europe, and the draft will be rescinded the day the first bugler-in-a-can blows Taps over a trust-fund baby.

put them anywhere he wants... he is the boss

So the rich kid gets drafted but I'm sure he will have a plush position in Texas ...

So how is Rangel going to get by this fact...


When you go into the Army the Army trains you for your position

theres the desk clerk at the pentagon and theres the front line guy...

your just putting our children under Rumsfeld's thumb...

and by the by, if the Sec Def is going to ensure that every rich Republican gets a cushy billet down in Texas, we are having other problems... DEERS and Personnel make those decisions. Usually a poor yeoman gets stuck with it in the Navy... and many of these influential folks might be officers.

Will some of that happen? Absolutely, not because of the Sec Def, but because the kid is the son\daughter of senator or big donor... but once that happens, the troops have cute ways to deal with it... them chicken-shit assignments get rather uncomfortable for many of these chickenshits....

Now this leads to another sad change in the country, the WW II generation, well even folks like poppy volunteered for front line assignment because they knew that if they got any of them cushy assignments it would not be good for latter life. Today, they have other priorities, but are willing to send the kids of the poor to war... and are chicken hawks, this happened in Nam and is fully and truly a function of Empire... when the elites no longer bleed and die, and another sign of an empire in decline... that IS the bright side.

I also know there are a lot of division personnel service sergeants who are so old they have sprouted mold, and they tend to lose a lot of paperwork...like Jenna and Barbara's orders to Fort Sam Houston as aides de camp to the Medic School commanding general. And I know they're completely capable of replacing that paperwork with...oh...orders sending them to Iraq as forklift drivers for the XVIII Airborne Corps ammo dump, which just happens to be within cannon range of the Old Iraqi Army 1st Division Artillery's deployed field headquarters at Tall Afar.

The personnel sergeant's motto: "All they can do to me is shave my head, bend my dog tags, stamp "no dessert" on my meal card and send me to Korea." And when there's a war that won't ever be over being waged right now, Korea looks pretty damn good in comparison.

and protest!

As long as my country so enjoys throwing it's military might around (we invaded GRENADA for Christ's sake!) I say no.
I get his point, but the military of this country is sucking the country dry. The promise this nation once held (with all it's flaws) has been squandered and sending more of our kids to fight and die in a losing battle for corporate love of money and power is totally unacceptable. Not my sons. No fucking way. The money being wasted could house the poor, feed the hungry, grant college educations to every young person, guarantee health insurance for all. You get my drift.
Service to country is fine- Teach America, Peace Corps., volunteering in the community, strengthens our country. It is good for all of us. Coast Gueard, National Guard-that stays here and actually does what it is meant to do, excellent. When my country regains it's sanity, then I say yes to compulsory service- but until then I say no fucking way. Army, navy, Air Force, Marines. No problem. Just not sucking up hundreds of billions of our tax dollars so there is nothing left to do but fight war after endless war.
No draft.

Voted no. My kids are not going. Now, the next plan, is, how to keep them from going 'cause I see this draft coming.

many of the above posts point out all sorts of problems the current situation causes ... some say it will wake up young people and get them involved ... that's absolutely true ...

some say a properly worded draft law could substantially improve the previous inequities that led to a disproportionate drafting of minorities and the poor ... well, maybe ... we've never done all that well creating real equality but at least the spirit is there ...

and perhaps most importantly, some suggest that if more had to pay the price, maybe the public would be a bit more cautious before going along with a call for war ... and that may be true as well ...

but the draft people? are you fucking nuts? can you imagine the horror of truly understanding that Iraq is all about imperialism and "killing for the man" and being forced to give up your right to liberty to serve the neo-con vision? at a time where we have fewer and fewer liberties, our Constitutional freedoms are eroding every day, and militant madmen rule the roost, you want to pass laws to further empower them to make you "soldier on" in support of their evil schemes?????

you can't be serious ... the draft, however well meaning some may see it, is a terrible idea ...

We've already got enough dead from this damn war and drafting in order for more to be killed sounds fucking insane to me.

Besides, with a draft, we would get a piss-poor military, IMO. I don't believe anyone should be forced to serve especially in an illegal and immoral war like this.

I have said before, and I'll say again, that if anyone wants to end Bush's imperialistic war, and all future wars, there is only one thing that needs to be done: IMPOSE A 100 % EXCESS PROFITS TAX ON ALL WAR PROFITS.

This will take all incentive out of these criminal campaigns. Therefore, a draft will not be needed, contrary to what the naive posters on this forum believe.

Not taking my kids.........

Bush, Cheney, Gingrich et al. managed to beat the draft through various technicalities. The worst that would happen is a rear echelon platoon of the Powers' That Be next of kin, maybe a wing of the Texas Air National Guard. The "things have to get worse to get better" concept doesn't really work in practice, or Nader voters would register republican to hasten the phoenix-like demise and renaissance of the republic.

but they sure as hell will profit from those wars

the war will only be ended when the war profits go down hill

that is why a 100 % excess profits tax is needed -- that for damn sure will end this and all wars

Results since MARCH 23RD, 2006


Yes 34.0%

No 63.0%

Undecided 1.0%

How can people endorse such a moronic idea? Didn't you see how the Republicans voted it down during the 2004 campaign in order to make themselves look good and to make Kerry look foolish?

As I posted above, a draft is no guarantee against selective enforcement or against giving cosy assignments to wealthy elitists! Nor does it automatically stop war as profits will still be made and go untaxed.

Republicans want you to waste your time defending the draft because it distracts people from offering meaningful guarantees against war. The only guarantee to stop war is the imposition of a 100 % excess profits tax that takes away ALL profits from war. That is what you should be demanding!