Disagreeing with Rangel's draft plan does mean one is against him.

[Cascadian]

Why are people so quick to assume that calling Charles Rangel's draft proposal a bad idea equates to being against Charles Rangel or the Democrats? Never in my whole life I have ever disliked Charles Rangel. He has been the Democratic Party's most prolific and great lawmakers. The draft issue is about the only thing I disagree with him on. Yet people are attacking those who also think it is not a good idea. Why is that? Why should we all go in lockstep with EVERYTHING a Democratic lawmaker supports or sponsors? There are going to be times when somebody is going to disagree with somebody and they should not be shunned for it. If you shun somebody or accuse them of being traitors then you are no different than the righties who control the GOP.

Think about it.


John

[CTLawGuy]

1. I think it is an awful strategy

it's like advocating legalizing slavery of white people to protest racism.

Legislation is for getting stuff done and not making political points.

[bowens43]

2. I'm against him.

I've been listening to him all day on various news programs. The more he talks the more ridiculous he sounds. He needs to go. This single issue calls into question everything that he has done.

[Cascadian]

4. Even the most brilliant minds have made mistakes.

I don't think he should go. I just want him to back down from this draft idea. It would be a recipe for disaster. I still have some respect for Mr. Rangel but he is dead wrong on the draft. He's tried to run this through Congress several times already and they all failed. I cannot see this passing either.


John

[dogman]

3. Why don't people see that his proposal is not really about the draft.

It is about who will fight wars and what wars will they fight. It is designed to focus the nation and understand what war involves in relation to our people. The draft is not the idea. The discussion and thought are what he is striving for.

[CTLawGuy]

5. I think they already got the message

hence our election victory.

Would you advocate prohibition of the sale of food to protest world hunger?

[dogman]

10. Is that why there is still talk of attacking Iran?

Would you offer food to the hungry if they were willing to risk death for it. That is what he sees in his District now.

[CTLawGuy]

13. the draft existed

when WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were entered into. It did NOT stop any of those wars from taking place let alone people talking about them.

I don't understand your retort to my food comment. My point was that it's silly to propose radical, unpopular legislation in order to draw attention to an issue.

[dogman]

15. And the draft helped end the Vietnam War.

The draft has existed through out history, in one form or another, therefore it is not really radical. So have mercenary armies. That is basically what we have now. That helped end the Roman Empire. If the draft is unpopular, it follows that war will be also. How would you draw attention to the fact that people who have no stake in the war have no real care about who fights it? We have a back door draft at present, there are few who are affected by it however.

[CTLawGuy]

18. the draft existed for 8 years and killed 50,000 draftees

before it allegedly ended the war. That doesn't really impress me as an effective strategy.

People oppose the draft not because they oppose the war, but becuase they believe the government should not have the right to impress people into military servitude against their will.

It's a very un-American notion. Personally, I would advocate constitutional abolition of the draft.

[dogman]

21. It isn't meant as a strategy.

The strategy is to engage people in thought and discussion. The last time Rangel voted against his own bill. He wants the hearings that would be held for the bill to shine a light on the present system. The GOPers would not hold hearings, they brought it up for an immediate vote and denied him a hearing. He expects better from Dem leaders. As a person who lived through the era, I know the Vietnam War ended because of the loss of life. Mothers and syblings reached the breaking point. Unfortunately it did not happen sooner.

[babylonsister]

6. I also wonder. Heck, even the NBC reporter stated that Rangel

called for a draft to draw attention to the war and the hell the military is putting the soldiers through by making them continually go back. Why it's not understood here baffles me.

[xultar]

7. Ditto. And when you say that here on DU people think you are being

condescending toward them.

[Raiden]

16. No, we only think it's condescending when you say things like...

"People just don't get it..." Any thinking person gets it. I just do not, under any circumstances support a draft. How is putting up other people's kids to prove a point any different when the left does it.

Rangel is serious about a draft; that's what I don't like. He forgets that a draft has never stopped any war here in America, the wealthy will NEVER send their kids to fight and die in a foreign country.

[Mythsaje]

9. Partly because

some of us vehemently oppose a draft, and we're a bit tired of having it pointed out "well, he doesn't really mean it."

Yeah, I think he does. And I know damn well that some DUers would like to see it themselves. THAT is what the arguments here have been about--not Rangel bringing it up in front of everyone. It's about the people who think it would be a good idea.

I can list a whole LOT of reasons why it's a terrible idea. And have. In the last twenty four hours. Several times.

Handing our kids willy-nilly over to a government that is SO effectively proven it can be hijacked by extremists who LIKE the sound of never-ending war is just nuts.

No draft. No way. No how.

[LittleClarkie]

28. We get it. We just think it was a lousy way to get his point across

and infinitely spinnable. And the timing sucked too.

[dogman]

30. I guess it could be as damaging as a botched joke.

Infinitely spinnable and lousy timing. But I would be one of the last to tell him or any person to STFU.

[LittleClarkie]

33. I didn't say I was saying STFU. But don't assume people don't get it

if they don't agree. Rangel has every right to do what he does. And people have the right to say yea or nay regarding what a good idea it was or wasn't. I understand the point he was trying to make. But I think the way he picks to make it... well, since you bring up Kerry, it's like trying to explain "I voted for it before I voted against it." I can try, and I can still like the person who made the remark. But I'm still cringing when my Conservative friends bring it up. Know what I mean?

[dogman]

37. There are a few differences.

Rangel has explained it himself. I doubt that conservatives are upset by this, but if they are it would be a great opportunity. I would welcome that debate with the supporters of this war. Yes you did not write STFU, that was more of a misdirected response to a post below.

[Jon8503]

8. I'll stand by you for your right to disagree just as I do not agree with

you on this. I agree with what Charlie is doing and I am not sure he is calling for a draft as much as he wants a debate on this subject. As he stated today on CNN, if the war is important enough to support then why should not everyone sacrifice. Also, if the draft included everyone, we more than likely would not even be in Iraq right now.

It is just like the Freepers supporting the war. When Cris Matthews asked those who supported the war to stand up then asked them if they would be willing to go fight the war and most all sit back down.

It is ok to fight wars as long as those wars are not fought by our children, brothers or those close to us but to the less fortunate and those who don't seem to have another direction to go. That is pretty much what we have now other than the elites in the military such as Westpoint graduates or military family members.

Regardless the draft did work before and due to the draft it brought huge demonstrations on college campuses, cities all over and eventually brought down LBJ and stopped the war in Vietnam. During that time there was a good cross-section of the military mirroring the civilian population. Yes, people such as GW were still able to get out of the draft and go to Vietnam and there will always be those who can beat the system but overall it worked and will work again. It will be back in due time.

[Mythsaje]

11. Combine the draft

with the patriot act and some of its "aiding the enemy" provisions, and you're opening up a can of worms NO ONE should want opened.

Right now lack of volunteers is a GREAT protest...it makes it impossible to raise the troops to invade another country.

Give them the draft and there's no stopping them. Protest? No. Not if they arrange a nice little "bombing" to get the people on the fence to switch to their p.o.v. Then, suddenly, the protesters are "aiding the enemy."

I think giving them a tool they could so easily misuse is INSANE.

[last1standing]

12. It's an amazingly charged subject.

I said I supported it in another thread and was told that I enjoyed spilling the blood of children. Most people can disassociate one proposal from the rest of the Democratic party, but DU, like freeperville, has it's share of extremists who see everything as good or evil arguments. Fortunately, we have far fewer than the other site, but we definitely have them.

[HockeyMom]

17. Besides which is won't work

Having coming of age during the Nam era, I have first hand experience of how many rich, AND middle class, kids got out of the draft via "medical" deferrments (money and/or who you knew).

[last1standing]

20. That has nothing to do with what I said, though.

I was talking about the fact that some DUers are extremists who see everything as a good or evil argument. I'm done discussing the draft proposal because too many here aren't mature enough to handle the debate without insulting others. Other members of the house have effectively said they'd kill it, anyway so its a dead issue.

[Sparkly]

25. I share your astonishment. nt

[Raiden]

14. I won't stand for this lynching!

You don't support him just because he's black! :sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Since this is the second or third time he has pulled this stunt....

for me it has become personal: I dislike Rangle because he keeps playing this obnoxious game of his.

[dogman]

22. He has not been able to get hearings on the subject.

That is why he is pushing it. He wants discussion on the status quo.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. He should shut up.

You do not end war by providing the war machine with conscripts.

[Sparkly]

24. He has no intention of "providing the war machine with conscripts."

Could we at least be clear and honest about Rangel's position?

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Rangel's proposal is dishonest.

Rangel's proposal calls, on its face, for a reactivation of the draft. That, at face value, would provide the war machine with the conscripts it has been lacking since 1973. Of course as Rangel's proposal is dishonest, Rangel knows (wink wink nudge nudge) that nobody can vote for it (except Murtha and some other idiot last time around). So while Rangel might have no intention, Rangel's stupid legislation does exactly that: provides the war machine with conscripts.

We get it. 'It' is a dishonest political maneuver and stupid stunt.

There have been many posts here in support of Rangle's proposal, in support of the draft, posts declaring his actual proposal, not his clever stunt, to be a grand idea. The Rangle supporters are attempting to have their cake and eat it. My position is far clearer. The draft enables more war crimes, and Rangles stunt was stupid and counter productive.

[dogman]

31. Switzerland has had mandatory service.

No wars, no war crimes and has been one of the oldest democracies in the world. bushco has been able to go to war and commit war crimes without a draft. Rangel has used the bully pulpit, usually held by the President, to put this all out in the forefront of debate and discussion. No one shuts up Rangel.

[Cascadian]

27. Could you imagine if Joe Lieberman proposed this?

Everybody would be howling about this. Even those who support Rangel's idea. I sure hope this has nothing to do with the fact that Rangel has a "D" at the end of his name.


John

[dogman]

32. No , I couldn't.

Joe likes this war.

[LynneSin]

26. I oppose the concept of the draft but I support what Rangel is doing

which will probably never enact a draft but force the debate on the floor and expose the hypocrisy of the republicans who don't want their children and children of their wealthy supporters being forced to serve in a war.

[slackmaster]

34. I am against Senator Rangel

Over the years I have disagreed with him on many issues, and I think he's obnoxious.

[Zavulon]

35. I'm against him.

I've got a problem with crime in my neighborhood, so let's legalize B&E so that the richer folks suffer, too.

This is the wrong way to make a point, and not what legislation is for. Plus, the fact that the suggestion comes from our side doesn'r look good, period. Out of the millions of eligible voters, a hundred thousand are here. Too many others are bypassing political awareness to discuss whether Clay or Ruben should have won, and the media won't hesitate to remind them of where draft legislation came from.

I'm so pissed off about Rangel's idiocy that I can't even see straight.

[Eurobabe]

36. I aksed the same of the Kerry supporters who attack those of us

who don't care for Kerry as a candidate in 2008. DU has this weird lockstep mentality lately. Don't QUESTION anyone or anything!!

Phuck that.