Senator Rangel looks to reinstate draft

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MaxFisher

War Child
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
776
Location
Minneapolis
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...OC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-DRAFT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.
 
Most of Rangel's arguments in favor of this concept come from his belief that the poor and minorities are fighting a war that's mainly supported by the rich and powerful ("chicken hawks"). As such, Rangel is pushing for this concept as both a socioeconomic equalizer and as a way to make this war so unpopular as to force a pullout.

With that, this bill will never make it out of committee, and even if it did, it would face a resounding defeat.
 
Not that I want to go...but if this were to really happen, I wonder if this could also mean finding a way to include women in the draft. I mean, last I remember they couldn't be in front lines. :hmm:
 
Re: Re: Senator Rangel looks to reinstate draft

BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well this is true...:shrug:
No it isn't, the draft is a form of slavery to government, people have freedom of concience and must elect to be in the military by their own volition.
 
I am not in favor of bringing back the draft. But I wondered -- as President Bush pushed for this "war" -- how many people in his family , or even in the circle of people that he knows personally would be serving. I wondered the same thing about the members of Congress. And I agree with Rangel-- these decisions would be made much more carefully, if each and every person who advocated for this war assumed a personal level of risk.
If the draft is reinstated, I would strongly support some type of alternative public service. I also think that women would have to be included. In the long run, this would, I think, make all of us more conservative in the military actions that we advocate. Participating in some form of mandatory community service would also give us common experiences as citizens -- which in my opinion, would be a good thing.
 
Re: Re: Re: Senator Rangel looks to reinstate draft

A_Wanderer said:
No it isn't, the draft is a form of slavery to government, people have freedom of concience and must elect to be in the military by their own volition.

I'm completely behind this war, I just don't want my son or loved ones to fight it, but your son should be there on the front line.

Sounds like hypocricy to me.:huh:
 
I think the problem with a volunteer army is that Americans are likely to tune out.

I do not hear people talking about the war. I do not here people expressing any interest in educating themselves about the situation.

I think a draft mobilizes the electorate and personlizes the situation. Without the draft, it is so easy to dismiss it saying, "They Volunteered".
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Rangel looks to reinstate draft

BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm completely behind this war, I just don't want my son or loved ones to fight it, but your son should be there on the front line.

Sounds like hypocricy to me.:huh:
Do two wrongs make a right?
 
as much as I like Charile Rangel, I am not in favor of what he wants to do. Both of my older brothers were in the service during the Vietnam War. One brother was drafted, and my other brother enlisted because he knew sooner or later he would be dratfed. It was was horrible having them over there at the same time. and I thank God that they bothcame home alive and were not maimed like so many, that either came home in body bags, or without an arm or leg. To this day my one brother will not talk about being over there. They only thing he ever said was that we should have never been there at all.
 
Dreadsox said:
I think the problem with a volunteer army is that Americans are likely to tune out.

I do not hear people talking about the war. I do not here people expressing any interest in educating themselves about the situation.

I think a draft mobilizes the electorate and personlizes the situation. Without the draft, it is so easy to dismiss it saying, "They Volunteered".

Right. I think part of Rangel's motivation is to scare people into educating themselves and getting a dialogue going, because damnit this country needs it.
 
The draft is bullshit and that's all there is to it.

You DO NOT force someone to risk their life against their will. If you do, you might as well put a gun to that someone's head and pull the trigger yourself.

I don't see why anyone thinks this bill will ever go anywhere - it would be political suicide for most senators to vote in favor of a draft.
 
Harry Vest said:
Is this guy a Democrat???

Yeah. I think this is a ploy. It is his way of getting others to see that this war is unwinnable. He knows a draft will never pass.

Ironically, he is probably right.
 
namkcuR said:
The draft is bullshit and that's all there is to it.

You DO NOT force someone to risk their life against their will. If you do, you might as well put a gun to that someone's head and pull the trigger yourself.

I don't see why anyone thinks this bill will ever go anywhere - it would be political suicide for most senators to vote in favor of a draft.

I'm curious: America is at war. Who do you think should fight this war? What do you think we as a country should do if there are not enough people who voluntarily choose to pursue military careers to successfully carry out the objectives of this war?
Do you think that the statesmen and women who have supported the war have "pulled the trigger" on the large numbers of young people -- many with limited career options -- who are now engaged in fighting this war? And if so, do you think this is appropriate?
 
namkcuR said:
The draft is bullshit and that's all there is to it.

You DO NOT force someone to risk their life against their will.

You wouldn't be forced. You can leave and not come back. Win win.
 
Ormus said:
Most of Rangel's arguments in favor of this concept come from his belief that the poor and minorities are fighting a war that's mainly supported by the rich and powerful ("chicken hawks"). As such, Rangel is pushing for this concept as both a socioeconomic equalizer and as a way to make this war so unpopular as to force a pullout.

With that, this bill will never make it out of committee, and even if it did, it would face a resounding defeat.

True. And if it did by some fluke pass you can bet your ass that very, very, very few well off people (or their children) would ever actually serve.
 
Ormus said:
Most of Rangel's arguments in favor of this concept come from his belief that the poor and minorities are fighting a war that's mainly supported by the rich and powerful ("chicken hawks"). As such, Rangel is pushing for this concept as both a socioeconomic equalizer and as a way to make this war so unpopular as to force a pullout.

The rich and powerful were able to avoid serving in Vietnam and there was a draft then.

Also, I think the war is becoming massively unpopular already even without a draft.
 
What the hell in our history indicates to him that politicians won't lie if there is a draft? Ever since the first draft (the civil war - I believe) the rich have been able to buy their way out; therefore, once again it would be the burden of war on minorities and the oppressed.
Democrats should slap the shit out of him for even opening up his dumbass mouth. I've always been ashamed of the trash and ignorant nonsense that spews forth from this New York representative.
 
If the draft is a real threat, I think the opposition to the war will get even stronger. The guys I know have said they'd flee the country before they'd be sent to Iraq. There is no rallying around this one, people don't want it, the election proved that. Now wouldn't it be ironic if it was the Democrats who brought the draft back after people voted them in just because they hated Bush? :hmm:
 
U2democrat said:


Right. I think part of Rangel's motivation is to scare people into educating themselves and getting a dialogue going, because damnit this country needs it.

Do you think the American public is that smart? This strikes me as political suicide, and I'm not sure for what.
 
nathan1977 said:


Do you think the American public is that smart? This strikes me as political suicide, and I'm not sure for what.

Well they won a few IQ points with the last election, so maybe there's hope.
 
i do agree with Rangel's main point, which Melon elucidated -- part of the reason Americans seem so willing to use military force as a first resort (like in Iraq) is that it remains quite abstract to the elites who don't have children over there, and then to the college kids who aren't being freshly plucked a month after graduation to go get gunned down in a rice patty like in 1967.

i would challenge everyone to take a drive through some of the most economically downtrodden areas in the country -- Indian reservations, rust belt ghost towns, etc., and count how many military recruitment billboards are posted along the roads. when your school system has failed you, when college is unaffordable, and the military is offering you a way to pay for an education, is it any wonder those without money but with plenty of ambition are drawn to the military?

in peacetime, this seems a good thing, and there's little doubt that hundreds of thousands have greatly benefited from a volunteer army -- but such a system is ripe for abuse by the Bushies and their Marie Antoinette attitudes, as is the current situation.
 
If I were a soldier, I wouldn't want people standing on the line with me, backing me up, to be people who don't want to be there.

However I absolutely agree with the point underpinning his argument. If you want to be a 20 year old chickenhawk, you better offer up some responsibility here. The stench of hypocrisy is absolutely fantastic. If you don't think this war is worth your life or the life of your children and yet you support it wholeheartedly, that's stunning.
 
I agree with his argument, too. If you support the war, you need to be willing to participate in the sacrifice, not have the kids across town take on the whole burden. But this isn't going to get passed. Even Nancy Pelosi doesn't support it.
 
If the Democrats brought in the draft they'd be hung up on meathooks, the republicans would sweep 08 and we'd be looking past 2020 for any hope of them making a political comeback. This is one of the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.
 
Back
Top Bottom