Rangle has succeeded

[radfringe]

Question: How many Senators and Representatives in Congress currently has or had a son or daughter serving in Iraq?

Answer: 2

guess - what - Rangle has suceeded. Since he first proposed this idea 2 1/2 years ago - the purpose has never been to reinstitute the draft, the purpose is to open up a public debate. It worked -- there's a 'brazillion' threads about Rangle and the draft..

[stepnw1f]

1. Exactly.... (nt)

[radfringe]

2. thank-you...

almost makes me miss the "ban cigarettes" thread mania... :eyes: ...almost

[Dems Will Win]

151. READ THIS OR BE IGNORANT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2767636

TOP 5 DRAFT MYTHS DEBUNKED!

[EdwardM]

3. He has succeeded in getting a great new Right Wing talking point.

Tune on Fox News, they have already been handed the memo. Listen to Bill O or Rush today, they will talk about the same thing. There is nothing good that can come from this at all. All it is gonna to do is make the Democratic Party look like a pro draft party, and this will produces some horrible negative ads come 08.

[ixion]

5. yep, that's my call, too

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. I love the thought of Faux viewers hearing this with their cup of coffee this morning!

Now that'll wake their sheeple asses up! MKJ

[EdwardM]

8. Yes they will see that Democrats are calling for the draft.

How in the hell can that help us?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

24. For once, they'll get to experience a small shock of fear of government

policy decisions affecting them very personally. Something of which they've been blissfully ignorant over the last few years, while those of us in the reality based world have grappled with it daily.

And, imagine, it's because of just a few words spoken by a Democratic Congressman.

"Despite the evidence to the contrary, it is just too easy for the President to give assurances that our military would be available and ready to carry out regime change, wherever and whenever he and his advisors want to, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea," Congressman Rangel said.

"The President said in his State of the Union address that war was an option that remained on the table in dealing with these countries. In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms. As other people's children endure a grinding war, they have been given huge tax cuts, while our veterans have gotten cuts in health benefits," Congressman Rangel said.

MKJ

[EdwardM]

31. Yep and they will vote republican because of it,

They will see that voting Democratic may restart the draft.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Don't Faux viewers vote repub, no matter what? n/t

:shrug: MKJ

[CrispyQ]

101. I agree with you completely.

The pukes would love a draft but know it is political suicide. I suspect they are loving that this bill comes from a dem. They get the draft & the White House & Congress in '08.

[Arkana]

141. Yes, because I'm sure that it was FIRST

on our agenda as soon as we got into power.

Please. Rangel is doing this to stir up shit--no other reason.

[Kber]

No it's not on our agenda

Pelosi isn't even going to bring it to a vote.

[Horse with no Name]

132. First of all, read what you wrote

Why do we care what idiots who are stupid enough to turn Faux news on think?
That is the problem. They don't think.
They have their talking points spoon-fed to them.
They are harmless really. Maybe it will piss one of them off enough to mail detergent to someone, but if it takes any more effort than that, there will be no action.

[radfringe]

13. so debating a draft is bad because

it will produce negative ads in '08?

I think it's just what we need. We have troops in Afghanistan, troops in Iraq, and probably before the year's out we'll be invading Iran. We have troops on the 3rd or 4th deployment - we already have a freaking back-door draft.

Look - when it's some arm-chair flag-waving right-winger's kid being drafted and sent to war - the Chicken-hawks may think twice about drinking the kool-aid.

[The Count]

19. It's not just a debate, and it's bad because it plays in W's hand and it will KILL

people. Poor people as from Charlie's draft to application it'll work for them like everything else is.
Also, for something that started as a politics gimmic, to be turned around so easily - what was the point again?

[MADem]

26. What are you saying? That's not English. You make no sense.

Poor people as from Charlie's draft to application it'll work for them like everything else is.

WTF???????

[The Count]

33. POOR PEOPLE WILL DIE. Bill WILL PASS WITH LOOPHOLES. RICH PEOPLE

will still do the bush family thing.
Is that English enough for ya?

[radfringe]

40. Poor people are already dying

and the big loop hole is that enlisting is voluntary...

[Hubert H. Hubert]

46. Forgive me for being dense

But how the hell is volunteerism a loophole?

[radfringe]

52. you volunteer to go

if you choose not to join - you don't have to

I know it's not a loophole in the conventional sense, but you avoid serving in the military by NOT volunteering

[Hubert H. Hubert]

69. Are you implying it's voluntary for everyone except the poor?

Even if we assume that all poor people have absolutely no choice but to join the military, that still doesn't address the real insanity of this whole draft argument:

Instating a draft will not stop the poor from dying. All it will do is spread the suffering.

Are you actually suggesting that instead of getting out of this nightmare, we should INCREASE the suffering?

That is a truly disturbing thought. Frankly, I am beyond the whole "if you support this war then get your ass over to Iraq" thing. I don't want any more people to die for this bullshit. NOT. ONE. MORE. PERSON. Freeper or anti-war activist. Rich or poor. This bullshit needs to end NOW.

[radfringe]

81. no

if we are going to expend blood and bucks willy-nilly on stupid wars, there needs to be a supply of blood and bucks.

You get that supply of "blood" two ways - either you ask for volunteers or you draft them.

what happens when you run out of volunteers? Keep in mind more than a few of our troops are on their 3rd or even 4th tour of duty in Iraq. We are still at war in Afghanistan, and it looks like the bushies wants to start up with Iran.

when bush wanted to invade Iraq and if there was a draft going on at that time - would the public support for it be as great as it was?

It's always easier to ask other to make a sacrifice, much harder when YOU are the one being asked.

CR's bill is designed to open a debate, for people to realize it could be one of their own who will be fighting and dying. Might make them less eager to rush into a war.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

89. Sorry, but...

if we are going to expend blood and bucks willy-nilly on stupid wars, there needs to be a supply of blood and bucks.

Sorry, but that by default implies that you support the expenditure of blood and bucks willy-nilly on stupid wars in the first place.

Instead of trying to figure out how to get more people killed, maybe, just MAYBE we should concentrate on getting those who are now in harm's way safely home.

This whole draft nonsense is a ridiculous red herring and an unnecessary distraction. Not to mention a cheap stunt whose time has long passed. It may have had a tiny bit of merit back when Rangel first introduced it, but things are a bit different now, in case you haven't noticed.

[radfringe]

109. taking a deep breath

ok - stepping back a bit. CR's bill is designed to open a debate on the draft. It's purpose is to get people to recognize the cost of war, and hopefully prevent us from rushing headlong into another war.

We can wrap ourselves in the flag, slap magnets on our cars and sing "support our troops" until the cows come home. We can do this very easily - when it's NOT our kid, our husband, our brother, our wife, our sister who is doing the fighting.

it's easy to ask other's to make a sacrifice, much harder when YOU are asked to do the same.

as far as things being different? different than when? different than the run-up to invading Iraq? in case you haven't noticed - we are being prepped for invading Iran.

Logic says we can't fight another war with Afghanistan and Iraq still going on - but since when does logic apply to the bushies? IF the draft were a very real possibility - how much support would the bushies get WHEN they really start pounding the Iran War Drum?

[Hubert H. Hubert]

116. I see you have resigned yourself

to the idea of endless war. Fine. Let the bodies keep piling up. As long as everybody suffers equally, it's OK.

[radfringe]

120. I NEVER SAID IT WAS FREAKING ALRIGHT

I'M FREAKING SAYING WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE COST OF WAR REALLY COSTS US. UNTIL WE ARE ALL WILLING TO EQUALLY SACRIFICE AND ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SACRIFICE THERE WILL BE FREAKING ENDLESS WARS.

THE SITUATION WE ARE IN IS THAT TOO MANY FREAKING PEOPLE THINK IT'S OK TO START A FREAKING WAR AS LONG AS IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S KID DOING THE FIGHTING.

VIETNAM DIDN'T END BECAUSE WE FREAKING WON, OR BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION HAD A CHANGE OF HEART - IT ENDED WHEN TOO MANY BODIES CAME HOME, WHEN TOO MANY FAMILIES FELT THE COST, WHEN THE PEOPLE FINALLY SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

IF IT'S GOING TO TAKE A THREAT OF A DRAFT TO GET PEOPLE OFF THEIR BUTTS AND REALIZE THAT TOO MANY HAVE DIED IN A FREAKING STUPID WAR THEN SO BE IT.

[MADem]

47. Voluntary, eh? They've lowered standards to the point they are taking repeat criminals and

gang members. We're back to the old days, from before the AVF, when judges gave punks the "jail or Army" choice. Voluntary? Not to those with no jobs, no prospects, no education or training, or a judge looking down on them with a hand on a gavel.

[radfringe]

55. are they being told they have to serve

or are they given a choice between jail time and military time?

[MADem]

62. Such a choice...three to five in prison, or three hots and a cot, a paycheck

and a crapshoot? You can get killed in prison just as easily as you can patrolling the streets of Falluja.

[The Count]

58. But poor kids who don't want to go, still don't go.

And all the young people protesting the war in my city (and Rangel's). he'll get them all round up and sent. Do you really not see where this is going? There's no difference between draft and volunteer you say? Then why draft?

[MADem]

72. Your argument is full of shit. You're making crap up to support a failed premise.

Rangel isn't planning on "rounding up young people protesting the war in (your) city." Lame, dumb assertion. The pal of your buddies Rush and Dildo, the Dunce, he still has his veto pen. No law will be passed without the express consent of the GOP. So stop putting this shit on Rangel. Now that the Democrats have the majority, they also have the soapbox. That's the big difference. Get with reality.

I DO see where this is going. Let me spell it out for you:

Any law passed, assuming one is, will have the imprimatur of fairness at its center. No loopholes for the rich, the famous, the wealthy. EVERYONE gets an "opportunity to excel."

I never said there was "no difference" between "draft and volunteer." That came out of some musty corner of YOUR own head.

Stop extrapolating and frankly, making stuff up, in an effort to rescue a horrible argument. Give it up. And go watch F/911 for a little recent history on our AVF. It's a good refresher in Military Recruitment Reality and would benefit your perspective on the issue.

If you're really worried about the draft, and just not earnestly expressing vague concerns to excite people, go picket the White House and tell Bush to bring our kids home, instead of posting about how mean Charlie Rangel, all by himself, is being towards you and yours.

[The Count]

54. More will die - thanks to "Rangle" as you fondly call him

he gives BFEE

ALL OUR CHILDREN!!!!

JUST FOR POLITICS!

[Fovea]

93. Can you yell 'Terra" a little louder please.

You should breathe deeply and think about this again when the panic attack subsides.

[MADem]

43. Well, I say bullshit. You don't think a Korean War Vet with a PH and a Bronze Star

knows all about privlege and loopholes, and how to plug those gaps?

I give Charlie credit for the life experiences of more than seven decades. Only a fool would underestimate him.

[The Count]

59. He may know, but he's not all powerful. I trust Clark on this one.

Clark is aganist the draft - and he may know more.
I also trust my own common sense.
They should work on impeaching Bush, not killing our kids.

[MADem]

78. I want you to explain to all of here how Charlie Rangel is going to draft people all by himself.

Come on, explain it.

A septugenarian from Harlem is gonna...what? Get a truck and round everyone up? Drive them to bootcamp himself?

Stop demonizing Rangel. Stop playing dumb and obfuscating the real issue. Understand what he is doing. He has the floor, and the ability to raise issues for discussion, and he's taking it.

No laws will be passed without a majority vote and a signature from the President.

Of course, you KNOW that. I should hope.

Yet you persist in smearing the man for engaging in Democratic debate, and THEN, you raise the "I FEAR" card because the Repiglicans might not like us for mentioning unpleasant truths. You cite Rush and Dildo as authoritative sources we should be cower from, because it somehow matters what THEY think of us. Give me a fucking break.

You might be a bit less transparent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. Absolutely. When you're the minority party you work to create debate.

When you're the ruling party, you implement.

[The Count]

15. Furthermore, this will become the Democrats' war

Colbert: "They only been in power 2 minutes and already dragged us into a disatruous war" It's the next step!

[MADem]

27. You quote a satirist like he's a pundit? Please. NT

[The Count]

35. A satirist that preempted pundits talking points. Many times before as well.

You say it's absurd to think they'll blame Democrats for EVERYTHING going wrong from now on? Dream on!

[MADem]

45. I note your "extreme concern" and frankly, I don't share it.

The only thing you can "count" on is that either your fear will paralyze you, or you'll be worn out carrying water for the opposition. Your very best efforts aren't going to stop this train. The discussion will move forward, despite your earnest attempts to get people all worried and fearful.

The GOP lost. They can whine and cry, but as of January, they do not control the legislative agenda. Time to get used to that fact.

[Binka]

49. Thanks MAD The Count Has Some Fuzzy Math Issues

Catch my drift babe? :hi:

[MADem]

56. Ciao, bella!!! I gotcha!

Hope you are well, and Ben too!

:hi:

[The Count]

63. They LOST? Then why are 20,000 more kids going to war right now?

Aren't you a bit over-confident?
here's a little reading material while you gloat:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact




THE NEXT ACT
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

[MADem]

79. OK, rocket scientist. Tell me who controls the House and Senate. NT

[maxrandb]

18. But I thought the right loved and revered military duty?

Oh yeah, that's right. It's the most noble and honorable thing to do...WHEN SOMEONE ELSE'S KID IS DOING IT.

Why don't these Republicans support the troops?

[trof]

21. Gee, it would seem to me that being against the draft

might could be, in some circles, construed as being unpatriotic?
That's the political spin I'd put on it.
"Why do you hate America? Don't you want to serve your country?"
This could sure be turned right back onto the chickenhawks.
Just my opinion.

[The Count]

37. If you owned the media. As you don't, it will be turned against Dems.

Like everything else - only easier.

[MADem]

23. Oh, horseshit. It makes the Democrats look like ADULTS.

You can't fight a war without people. You can't go along and PRETEND there's nothing going on over there, that bodies aren't coming home in aluminum transfer tubes covered with flags, you can't stay the fucking course without cannon fodder.

Time for the childish, well-fed, Republican fat cats here in the U S of A to get a major reality check. People are getting blown up and they are DYING. They are our kids, our family members. ENOUGH. Here's the message to these clowns: You REALLY want your fucking war for oil? Send your fucking KID.

That's what Charlie is saying. Shared sacrifice.

You might be afraid of Right Wing Talking Points, but not me. Your very fear is sadly telling.

You give a shit what Dildo Really and Rush Limpballs say? What does that say about you? A pervert who makes nasty, harassing phone calls to female employees, and a drug addict with a cyst on his ass INFLUENCE you? They make you AFRAID???

Oh, Please. Enough of that bullshit.

[The Count]

39. I get it now! Draft=mature. Impeachment= childish. Glad I voted.

[MADem]

48. If you don't get what Rangel is doing, I cannot help you. You likely can't help yourself, NT

[IndyOp]

42. Rangel wrote the bill to fail - Mandatory draft up to age 42 for men and women?

Get serious. If FOX is, as always, fucking up public consideration of an important topic, then fuck FOX.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2764253&mesg_id=2764253

[The Count]

71. It'll be amended. And if it's a PR stunt and got bad PR - it failed.

I trust the senate with Joementum's help to craft a bill that BFEE + GOP will love. Just think: The Rangel/Lieberman draft bill! Oh, the legacy!

[MADem]

83. OOOoooooooh, ooooooooooh!!!! Abandon HOPE, all ye who read these posts!!!!!

We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED, I tell you..... doooooooooooooooooooomed!!!!

The Count has sounded the alarm.... the Democrats will destroy us alllllllllll!!!

Ooooooh, nooooooooooooooo!

Extreme :sarcasm:

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. Exactly. The Dems have to realize they opened a door and they now must take

control of the direction where this discourse will lead or the issue will get framed again. And I know we have hawks in the Dem party, too, enough to be suspicious of this move.

The verdict is still out on Rangel's motivations.

[caledesi]

70. Disagree. In the beginning, there will be a scare and be "seen"

this way, but people will be more anti-war than they are now. * will be exposed for this illegal war....Rangel is way ahead of us. This will effect "bring the troops home now."

BTW, why are you watching Fox? Haven't you read that Faux was rated the worst channel to get fact-based news.

Rush, Billo,....oh, good.

[yodermon]

74. What, you're surprised that Faux News is gonna talk shit about Dems?

News flash: mother fuckers will fuck their mothers. Don't be surprised.

[caledesi]

105. Let 'em talk. I hope that OxyRush, et al start talking up a storm...

hey we're driving the bus now and it's not a short bus. LOL!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Rangel has succeeded in making war real. Not a sports event.

The complacent American public are now thinking about war in real terms. That it's about killing, about casualties, about themselves or their kids being sent to kill and die rather than some other kids going off to win the "big game" as shown on TV.

Good for him. The screams are just what he was aiming for.

[laureloak]

152. You are so right. Even with the draft their kids won't serve. n/t

[xultar]

His whole purpose was that if the people who voted for wars had kids that

would be drafted they'd think twice about voting for war.

I love you Rangle!

[MannyGoldstein]

4. My Thoughts Exactly

Everyone's thinking about it. Good!

I'm just waitin' to hear what Hill the Shill has to say - should Chelsea be torn from helping society at a hedge fund, so she fight in her mom's pet middle east project?

(I'm guessing she'll have as much to say about this as she's had to say about Carville's vicious attacks on Dean.)

[MADem]

7. It's Rangel. And I'm shocked it has taken this long. The GOP has managed to

slap this down every time he brought it up. They want to stay the course while running our military so hard into the ground it will take a decade to recover.

Who are the two legislators, I wonder?
I know Ike Skelton has a kid on ACDU, but I didn't think he was in the sandbox. And Jim Webb hasn't taken his seat yet, but his son is over there in the USMC.

[babylonsister]

14. Doesn't Duncan Hunter have a son over there? nt

[radfringe]

20. yes, and Joe Biden -- the only 2

and how many in Congress and within the bush circle have kids old enough to serve but do not?

[MADem]

29. Incoming Senator Jim Webb's kid is there as well.

And Ike Skelton's son is USN but not in theater, FWIW. Both Democrats...!

[bornskeptic]

97. Tim Johnson's son served in Iraq

although he's currently in the US.

http://johnson.senate.gov/about.html

[The Count]

9. 1st: Is Rangel. Second: day is young. May I remind you this:

US plans last big push in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html

Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

[BlueManDude]

10. In making peiople wonder why they voted Democratic.

Spare me the "deep strategy" behind his ramblings. He can't shut up.

[The Count]

36. I know I'm starting to.

[MADem]

53. Rangel has been talking about this for THREE YEARS. Yet only NOW there's a spate of concern?

EXTREME concern, I might add. Bordering on a curious hysteria.

It benefits people to pay attention all along, not wake up and say "Gee, he meant it!" now.

People voted Democratic BECAUSE they heard what Rangel was saying way back when. "Shared sacrifice" makes us all face hard choices--like the choice to be in Iraq at all.

That's not "deep strategy." That's self evident.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

87. I know, it's as if this some kind of big news, when he's consistently held this position for 3 years

Yes, the MSM and repubs will spin, they always do, and the citizens of this country will continue to awaken. Probably at a much quicker rate with the draft discussion, FINALLY, occurring in the media, the workplace and at home. MKJ

[MADem]

92. It's not like there are only three Republicans on the Hill. Any legislation passed WILL be first,

bipartisan, and second, signed by a GOP President.

I find, as I am sure you must, this "sky is falling" wailing a bit curious, and even desperate, as if somehow we'll turn on our majority party because certain members are saying the same damn things they've been saying for years!

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Make the Repugs vote and go on record

that they oppose the Draft.

Way to go Rangel.

BTW: Last to this came to a vote, Rangel voted against his own bill.

[warrens]

12. Make the draft mandatory for elected officials and those making $200K or more

It would be fun to watch the elites' heads explode. And would make them VERY reluctant to start half-baked wars. Or unbaked ones, for that matter.

[Akoto]

16. Apparently, I am an idiot for being afraid of Rangel's strategy.

Being of prime draft age and with a brother who's the same, I guess it may be unreasonable for me to fear that this may pass one day, much to Rangel's surprise.

[The Count]

25. As a parent, I am just as idiotic as you are.

[MADem]

38. Guess what FEAR does? It gets complacent people up off their asses.

We need more people to push away from the teevee and the computer and fill the streets in front of the White House. It's our government, we need to take it back.

No one does much, see, no one cares much....because it hasn't yet BECOME PERSONAL. When it's OTHER PEOPLE's KIDS, hey, who gives a shit? When it's your ass, or your child's ass, on the line, why, there's suddenly MOTIVATION. Don't blame Rangel for forcing the issue. Blame the Republicans for DESTROYING our Armed Forces and necessitating this debate in the first place.

[Cameron27]

103. When did Vietnam become personal?

I was marching in the streets and we still lost 58,00 American lives before it was over. Flower power took too damn long then and I don't see that things are any different now.

I'll say it again, if Rangel wants to send a message let him direct it to the lawmakers who vote for war; let their sons & daughters be the first to go.

[MADem]

121. Vietnam became personal as the draft reached deeper into the younger age ranges

Before then, no one gave a shit. People like to THINK they did, but they didn't. There were protests here and there, but they scarcely intruded on the Lawrence Welk World of the greater population of Heartland America.

If you remember, and if you were in the streets surely you do, the critical mass happened AFTER the troop levels went way up, the draft started hitting kids just out of high school, and the causalty rates got past ten grand a year.

Initially, the draft policy was "draft the oldest first." The problem was, they weren't getting the quality they needed, or the numbers, because there were deferments if you were married with kids (Dick Cheney used that one, for example--and four others as well). There were a shitload of privleged farts like Bush and Quayle taking refuge in the Guard. They'd already run through most of the demobbed Korean vets who were stumbling along and were happy to be recalled after that conflict ground down, and they were first picking off draftees that were not teens, but young adults.

And who were the parents of these draft-aged young adults? The Greatest Generation, who "went when called." The "Silent Majority" who did not question the President. You didn't "refuse." It wasn't DONE back then. They pushed their kids off to war, like it or not.

Then, in 68, the roof blew off, with MLK and RFK getting killed and the beatdown at the Chicago Convention all happening within months of each other. But the icing on the cake came with THIS: http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm

Once the lotteries started, all bets were off. THAT's what created critical mass. Kids being forced to go to college to get out of going to war. Kids who couldn't afford tuition or get a loan forced to be all they could be. Admission standards going through the roof--college administrators able to hold incredible sway over kids--screw up? Flunk that test? Your ass is OUT--and I'm telling the draft board, too!

Remember, Kent State didn't happen until 1970.

Between 1961-65, we lost FEWER people in Vietnam than we have thus far in Iraq (and they didn't have today's force protection assets like body armor and kevlar helmets, either): http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

The numbers got pretty rough in the next two years and peaked in 68, with close to fifteen thousand dying, and then sloped downward until we left.

Rangel is doing everyone a favor, if they'd only be smart enough to stop whining (selfishly) about their own personal potential for them or their loved ones to be drafted, and start discussing, in realpolitik fashion, the cost-benefit realities of this war. No one, it seems, GIVES a shit if our money is being flushed down the toilet, shoved into the greedy paws of corporations....but DAMN, if "I" have to serve or "my kid" has to go...well, Charlie Rangel is BAD!!!! Bad!!!!! Blame HIM!!! And pay no attention to the GOP fuckers who STARTED this farce in the first place.

Of course, if any draft bill is passed, it will be approved by a bipartisan Congress and signed by a Republican president.

But way easier to try to blame a Congressman from Harlem who has been speaking truth to power on this issue for three frigging years....!

[Cameron27]

127. I think that it was

a combination of factors that finally broke the backs of the public will; the length of the war, the number of war casualties, war crimes, the nightly television broadcasts that brought the nightmare of wounded and dying soldiers into our living rooms, (just the picture of the naked little girl who was running down the street to try to stop the pain of napalm caused a massive ripple effect) and the fact that the geopolitcal domino theory was proven to be nonsense.

The lottery was a horror, but I don't think it was the main reason behind the pull out; it seemed to be more a tidal wave of negative factors that finally turned minds against the war.

Right now we have a near psychopath in office, who's looking for a "victorious" end to this war, many in his party are calling for an increase in troop strength... right now Rangel's draft proposition looks too much like a carrot dangling in their faces.

There may be merit to a universal draft, but right now isn't the time to be calling for one.

[MADem]

134. No, the lottery wasn't the main reason, it was as I said the icing on the cake

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. In 1969, it sure sucked to be born on September 14th between the years 1944 and 1950.

And the lottery certainly did NOT cause the pull-out by any stretch. What it DID do, though, was put people into the street, in massive numbers. It turned the Silent Majority against the war too. Because, just as it sucked to be born on Sep 14th in 69, it totally sucked to be born on July 9, 1951 in 1970. Age 19, and off you go to war, along with any other poor bastards born on a random other 124 days of that year.

The sense was that even if you dodged a bullet this year, there was always next year. And even though "your year" had already been through the wringer, who's to say those bums wouldn't change the rules in the future if times got tough enough? It became personal. It motivated people who otherwise might not have given a shit to get up off the couch, brush the cheetohs from their laps, make an antiwar sign with poster paper, an old broom handle, and magic markers, and go march. It motivated parents to ask themselves, "Do I really want my still-teenaged son to go die over there in some country I can't even find on a map?"

Rangel's draft propositon is anything BUT a carrot. It's a poisoned pill, more like. How can these pro-war Republicans face their constituents when they are sending little Johnny and Janie (and the first lawsuit if the draft is reinstituted will include Janie, guaranteed--equal protection) off to die in a war for oil? And conversely, how can they claim to support the war if they won't authorize, in their specific role as legislators, the deployment of personnel assets in support of the effort?

And if the Generals are screaming for fresh troops, how can Bush not sign the legislation?

Well, he can LEAVE IRAQ--that way he can avoid that problem.

It's completely a "put up or shut up" ploy. Anyone who doesn't vote for a draft is voting to leave Iraq. That's the frame. And there WILL be hearings, with testimony. And there WILL be debate on the floor, which, since WE set the agenda, we can have PLENTY of. The GOP warmongers will be boxed in nicely. If they want to play the Halliburton-funding game, they're gonna have to pay with the warm bodies of their constituents' kids. And that's unlikely to play well back home.

[William769]

17. Rangle is smarter than the average DU'ER

Thank God!

[The Count]

28. It's Rangel, and he's overreaching. propaganda machine is in their hands.

For the people managed to make W fearless and Kerry the traitor, it'll be a piece of cake to turn this around. They already are!

[Hubert H. Hubert]

22. Oh, he's succeeded all right

He's succeeded in shifting the attention away from the war and onto himself.

Way to go, Charlie.

[The Count]

30. Not really. DU-ers still call him "Rangle". Bit more posturing needed.

:sarcasm:

[KharmaTrain]

32. Spot On...But Has Succeded?

As a parent of two draft age children, when Rangel first brought this up 2 1/2 years ago, it made ME do a lot of thinking. I did't think about whose kids were serving or not...we already knew there weren't any. All one had to do was see Farenehit 911 to see that. The real issue was "how do I deal with this ugly war if it comes to my door step".

This ugly war for profit has been fought behind a curtain. In the early days, it was supposed to be some "romantic adventure" with shock and awe and sure looked neat on TV...but then when things started to turn ugly, the bloom fell of the war rose. Many of those who couldn't get enough stories about the exploits of the 101st Airborne, now wanted to watch something else. And if they didn't have to feel this ugly war, they could. This war a remote control war for a majority...with little fear that they would have any personal risk or involvement.

Now we're seeing our VA hosptials filling with the shattered bodies and minds of Iraqi veterans and more and more families are hearing the dirty truth...the thought of escalating this ugly war is abhorant. Rangel's bluff is to jolt these remote controls back into the here and now. It makes one ask fundamental questions as to what caused this ugly war, whose responsible and how it's been conducted...on all three scores, booosh and the Repugnicans lose big time.

The most successful way to force this regime to restrain their bloodlust is to generate overwhelming public opinion...and maybe Charlie's gambit will do that.

:hi:

Cheers...

[radfringe]

44. you put it better than I did

maybe I should send my posts to you for editorial review? lol

and although I do not have kids, I do have 2 nieces currently ages 11 and 9. If the bush wars continue and expand - my nieces could very well be drafted.

[KharmaTrain]

57. I Sympathize With Those In The "Line Of Fire" Here

Thank you for your kind words...you do quite well with your words here. I just post crash. :rofl:

War is the ultimate insanity. And it has to be shown as such for people to think about it in a rational and realistic vein. We know this regime would love to escalate the fear and wars for even greater profit, but they must be put in a box now...minimalized until we can ultimate remove them and drain more of the swamp in '08.

If I were 19 once again, I'd curse Rangel up one side and down the other, but as a parent, taxpayer, voter, "key demographic", etc, it's forcing my peers to see how this ugly war could walk right into their lives. And damn time it did.

One side benefit is that if more 18-30 year olds get pissed, the more will register to vote and get politically active. The politicians still don't think you guys vote...but I'd sure like to see that backfire.

Cheers...

:toast:

[radfringe]

66. showing my age here

about 1 year AFTER we pulled out of Vietnam, my brother had to register for selective service

until Carter repealed the Draft - the family was on edge, there was no big war going on, but he could have still been drafted and who knows what the future would bring..

My uncle was in the Navy during Vietnam, his ship was off the shores. He told my parents his ship was being sent there, and told them not to tell his parents where he was so they wouldn't worry.

my dad was a war hawk during this time. Until a co-worker's son (only a couple of years older than my brother) came home from Vietnam in a casket. He was less enthusiastic about it

It's easy to ask others to sacrifice, more difficult when it's YOU that are being asked.

[KharmaTrain]

85. The War Was Everywhere

I'm showing my age as well...LOL. In '74 I had to go to selective service and register. No mail-in in those days. I kept hearing "Alice's Restaurant" in my head. Somewhere buried in a box is my draft card...which fortunately went null and void shortly thereafter.

I felt Vietnam through encounters with many veterans I was friends with and worked with over the years. One, in specific, was a guy from my neighborhood who came back with obvious PTSD, but we didn't understand it or realize it at the time. He was considered "crazy"...a guy who was a fun time, but don't dare get in an argument with him or piss him off. One night he ended up in jail after he snapped at a bar...took three cops to take him down and then he was put in the drunk tank and released the other day. I'm sure this scene was repeated many times and I later heard he had ended up in a hospital. Sadly I never heard anymore.

I also worked with a Marine captain who went on S & D missions...ala Platoon. He would never talk about his military life other than mention he was in Nam. After several years of working together, one night over cocktails he began to talk about his Viet Nam experiences and as the drinks flowed so did the stories. While it wasn't about rape and pillage, it was about living in constant fear and all the carnage he saw and participated in...especially of close friends who he had to leave on the battlefield. In 2000 he voted for booosh, despite all my prodding, and didn't think he was crazy enough to launch a war...then after 9/11 he got emboldened and urged his son to volunteer (he's now back from a 6 month tour in the Green Zone), but soon started to see Vietnam all over again. In '04, we emailed constantly making comparisons about what his experience and what he saw going on. Despite being a lifelong Repugnican, he voted for Kerry. Last week, we emailed about the election and he voted straight Democratic and hopes, like I do, everyone involved in this ugly war for profit is made to pay for it at an International tribunal.

War got too "fun"...too "cool"...it's about time to call it for what it is...the ultimate insanity.

:toast:

[The Count]

73. Do they have to die to get politically active?

Are you OK with YOUR kids dying for it? Cuz, I am not with mine.

[radfringe]

84. when did the "public" get publically involved

during Vietnam?

they didn't until too many of their sons and husbands came home in a casket. Until then it was "America - love it or leave it" (sound familar?)

[KharmaTrain]

88. Sadly It May Have To Come To That....

This is a remote control war...it's fought mostly by the poor or the mis-informed who ended up paying the ultimate price for lies and is there any recourse for them?

Of course I'm not OK with my kids dying as much as I'm not in favor of yours. The hope here is to force the issue that takes any thoughts of escalating this misadventure and hasten the day all our kids are out of that snake-pit.

I hope people are pissed...that's the only way to get the public support to force this ugly war to a quick end.

[demgurl]

41. This has me in knotts.

I was positive that * was going to call for a draft if the Republicans kept power. I was so sure about this that I wrote to every Republican/* supporter I knew and said this right before the elections:

<snip>
We can not deny that our troops are barely holding ground and
perhaps we are even loosing ground. This brings a heavy thought to my mind. It has been established that people have been reupped who thought they were long gone from the service. Heck, the military has been so desperate they brought back a 60 year old who was retired! The military has expanded the age at which you can enlist and recently it has been reported that the military has been trying to recruit and it was caught on tape when they told a possible candidate that they did not have to worry about the war in Iraq since it is over!!! How can we trust these people when all we hear are lies? Think about the time period in which this occupation of Iraq may go on. We know, according to Bush, that it will go on for sure another three years. I have heard Rumsfeld say it will be at least ten years. This is long enough that my kids will be borderline old enough to be drafted. This is definitely long enough that either your children or grandchildren will be old enough to be
drafted. This is Bush's occupation and one he himself will not give up. He has stated that plain as day. The Republican officials have not gone against Bush, on this, at all. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. They have 'stayed the course' so far so nothing would indicate they would do anything else. When you vote, tomorrow, you are not just voting on your own personal issues. When you vote you may be making a bet on the life of your child or grandchild. You can't know for sure but are you willing to take the chance that a few short years from now you may be burying your child/grandchild and you will never see them again?
<snip>

So there you have it, I actually swayed a couple of people with my email. A couple of them actually voted on our side because my email actually stated, later on, that congress has not tried to curtail * in any way and if he wants a draft to continue his war, that is what will happen. I actually swayed a preacher who had voted for * twice because he was pro-life. He has a son that is basically draft age.

Now I feel like a fool and I know that people will hold Democrats responsible if this draft goes through. There are other ways of doing things. I am so embarrassed about Rangel. I feel like I have been made a liar and I should write to all those people and apologize for my party.

I understand why he is doing it but gosh darn, we said we were going to fix *'s mistakes ala the 100 hour plan. We never said we would compound them. I understand he is trying to get everyone involved and out protesting in the streets but I can not stand to think that more men and women will become targets because of this.

[progressoid]

64. This is politics, not policy.

The chance of the draft being re-instated is slim to none. BUT, the idea of a draft if very potent. Americans have been amazingly apathetic about this war. Mostly because it hasn't directly affected them. With the threat of a draft, they have to actually think about it; think about the consequences. They need to realize that this is more than slapping a yellow ribbon on their car.

[The Count]

75. It's both. It's a bill. Will be put to a vote. It'll become policy.

It's not a speech on the floor. It's a bill.

[progressoid]

118. Said it before, I'll say it again.

It won't pass. There aren't enough politicians that will risk re-election to vote for it.

But it certainly has people talking!!! Hopefully knocks the O.J. blather off the screen.

[demgurl]

76. I do understand why he is doing it.

Most of the American people will not do anything unless they are directly effected. We saw an example of this with gas prices. But now that we have the majority we can vote this through. Are you saying that Rangel has come out and said he will not present a bill and try to pass it? The next step is trying to do that and then Democrats may feel he is clever and pass it or they may have to take a stand against one of their own and tell the public 'He's not with us'. Either way it is a lose-lose situation for us.

So let's say it passes so that the Democratic party can wake the people. Then we have that many more going overseas to die. Up until now the press has downplayed our numbers any time we protest and who is to say that will not continue. I do not see * giving up this occupation and I think he would be overjoyed to get fresh cannon fodder. I say not one more should die for *'s lies. I am not prepared to have the blood of some teenage kid on my hands just to make a point to the slumbering in America. I will not sacrifice any more of our men and women just to get a point across. I believe such a thing is morally wrong.

I know he is trying to jolt people from their sleep but I just do not agree with this method.

[progressoid]

98. It won't pass. There aren't enough politicians that will risk re-election to vote for it.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

107. Shouldn't that be a tipoff right there of how stupid an idea it is? n/t

[progressoid]

119. Bills aren't only put forward if they will win. Sometimes you need to get people's attention.

And by the looks of things, this certainly has gotten some attention.

[MADem]

145. Who cares? It will be DEBATED. Testimony will be taken. We'll understand things that we don't see

now; like what the readiness levels are amongst our forces. And make no mistake, they aren't good. We are approaching a critical phase where we either have to stand down and train up or throw a few more logs on the fire.

I'm sure those sessions will be hot viewing on C-Span, and they'll likely have moments that make the nightly news.

That's the real point behind this exercise. It's a 'fish or cut bait' routine. The vote at the end of the discussion is almost immaterial. Minds WILL be made up when all is said and done. And I rather think the "Stay the course" mantra will NOT survive the onslaught.

[progressoid]

150. Eggggzactly

[Hubert H. Hubert]

77. Amazingly apathetic?

Do you think we would have gained control of both houses of Congress if Americans were "amazingly apathetic" about Iraq?

[progressoid]

114. Maybe an over-simplification. How about 'un-engaged' and 'blase'

Within the rank and file cheerleaders for the war, many have just grown tired of it. It didn't go the way they wanted and they want out. The current office holders couldn't do the job, so they voted for the alternative.

They want some easy solution to this mess, so they can watch Dancing With The Stars with a guilt free conscience. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution.

[radfringe]

50. suggested reading

Blueprint for Action by Thomas PM Barnett

before you blast me for suggesting such a book - read it, or at least the first couple of chapters.

he talks about waging war in general - in a nutshell there are two ways for a war to come to a successful end. You can do it with bodies (i.e. troops and blood) or you can do it with bucks (i.e. diplomatic/economic means before, or pay for rebuilding after destroying)

With the draft - it will make people think twice and then think twice again when it's their butt, their kid's butt, or a loved one's butt that will be on the line and they may not be so eager to slap a yellow ribbon magnet on their SUV

[The Count]

65. Shorter suggested reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact




THE NEXT ACT
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

[endarkenment]

96. Worked so well in the past, WWI WWII Korea Vietnam

At least two of those wars were entirely dubious propositions (WWI and Vietnam.) The theory that providing the war machine with a steady supply of forced recruits will end war is stupid beyond belief.

[treestar]

143. True, but it also could be they are waking up on this one and will learn from

it - at this point saying you support the war, then support a draft is redundant because the public finally came to its senses and opposes the war as it is. So adding this in doesn't help. The 30% of koolaid drinkers probably think there should be a draft anyway. The people who previously supported the war but now don't have woken up to it, so there is no need to get them to think twice by putting them more into it; they're already realizing the negative effects.

Then on the other hand that doesn't help those who died in the two years while these individuals figured that out.

So for future war suggestions, it could be a good thing.

[madokie]

51. so true, so true

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

60. Why aren't Rangel's two children enlisting? eom

[MADem]

90. Because they are too old, perhaps? NT

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

126. His daughter was recently expecting her second child. But considering

women do have children in her 40s you might be right.

[MADem]

130. Charlie was born in 1930. He met Alma 'stompin' at the Savoy.'

The Savoy closed in 1958, and likely they met before the year the place closed. So I'm guessing those kids are a bit long in the tooth for warfighting.

[caledesi]

61. Thank you. I "get it " too. My take is that Rangel wants to open

up a debate on a loaded issue, the draft, bec he knows that your average person will watch and listen. You will see polls go to 99% anti-war after this. This is HUGH; I am series.

[The Count]

67. And we care about polls because? W is escalating anyway (and polls are faked)

meanwhile, Charlie's bill passes (with amendments to exempt the rich) and BFEE benefits & gets to blame dems for the deaths.

[Binka]

99. Jesus Give It A Rest Henny Penny

Your sig line is disgusting by the way stolen elections are no joking matter.

[caledesi]

153. Rangel's blil has NO chance of passing. Get real! nt

[Beelzebud]

80. He succeeded in making people distrust a Democratic Majority. Nothing more...

It's a stupid fucking move, to make this a huge meme less than a month after we just elected them into power.

The average American doesn't think in terms of political strategy, and a lot of them are wondering why the fuck they just gave Democrats power because of this bullshit..

I'll say it: Rangel is an idiot.

[radfringe]

86. so the dems should just sit down, shut up

don't rock the boat because it may be used against them???? This isn't a party I want representing me, one that walks softly in lockstep -- we just got rid of a party of rubberstampers - now we should embrace a policy of egg-steppers?

excuuse me - but one of the things which upset me so much about the dems was their insistance on NOT rocking the boat, on sitting down, and then when they did say something for themselves - they would freaking apologize for it the next day.

[Beelzebud]

91. They could rock the boat by ending the funding for this quagmire.

They could rock the boat by threatening to impeach.

If this is your idea of them standing up and fighting, then thats pretty damn pathetic...

[radfringe]

95. it got people talking about the war beyond

slapping a yellow magnet on their SUV's and wrapping themselves in the flag.
How many times have you seen a post on the DU telling freepers to enlist if they support the war? How many freepers have actually gone out and enlisted?

Yes, the dems could cut off funding - and then what? the dems would be accused of NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS and THAT WILL BE USED AGAINST THEM IN 2008.

impeachment - despite Pelosi saying it's off the table - don't count on that. Impeachment is very much on the table.

[MADem]

110. Who ARE these "people" of whom you speak? They must be STUPID people.

People who haven't been PAYING ATTENTION. The man is saying the same thing he's been saying for the last three years.

Now, you're excited. You're upset. You're whining. But guess what? You haven't been paying attention or listening to the man for all these years ....and it's HIS fault?

You'll say it???? I'll say it--you should look in your mirror before you accuse Rangel of anything, because your characterization of him is probably quite a bit closer to your own home.

You fail to keep apprised, and you call him an idiot? That's ...... rich.

[Beelzebud]

117. 3 years ago he had no power. Now he's in the new Democratic majority.

These "people" I speak of are the average Americans that just put guys like Rangel in power.

The same "people" that he wants to use as pawns, by threatening a draft.

[MADem]

138. President Rangel is no doubt thrilled at the authority you have conferred upon him.

Amazing how he no longer needs votes in the House or the Senate, or a signature from a Monkey in the Oval Office to exert his will upon these "Average Americans" in your world of pawns.

I DO mean to be rude when I ask you: WTF did you EXPECT? He's been talking about this for three fucking years, but gee, then "...he had no power, NOW he's in the new Democratic Majority!!!!" He's supposed to change the consistent theme he has been pushing for three years, that got him reelected in yet another landslide, because you didn't think he meant what he was saying????

It's the GOP that don't mean what they say, not the Democrats.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

94. At least it's not a haven of cowards that want to dodge the draft.

Don't you love your country enough to defend it?

[Beelzebud]

100. Excuse me? Defend it? Defend it from Iraq? Are you fucking joking or what?

What the fuck?

[Hubert H. Hubert]

102. I was going to reply with "you forgot the sarcasm tag"

But knowing the poster, that would have been a sarcastic post in and of itself.

[MADem]

106. The GOP are cowards. They don't serve. They DO dodge not just drafts

(see Bush, George, Quayle, Dan, and Cheney, Dick as examples) but they even shirk their responsibilities towards their nation by failing to participate in an All-Volunteer Force. They feel as though we poor unwashed Democrats are the ones who should be doing the fighting, bleeding and dying. They're too "good," you see, too well fed and pampered to break a nail doing rough work.

There was no detectable sarcasm in that post. Just plain, bitter, brutal truth.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

113. Are you calling endarkenment a GOPer?

Because the post was directed toward him.

And I most certainly would dodge an Iraq war draft. I would prefer it if you called me a coward to my face.

[MADem]

122. If you read my post without putting your own perverse spin on it, you would see that it

concurs with the assessment by Bleachers that the GOP are cowards. And if you want private discussions with only one person, take your gripes offline, don't post on a public board. I've as much right to contribute to the discussion as anyone.

What part of my post confuses you? Is the word "generic" not in your vocabulary? I specifically indicated that "Iraq" was not the focus of the GOP cowardice matter--that it was a generic trait on their part. I even provided examples (Bush, Quayle, Cheney, all of whom were draft age during Vietnam, not Iraq, but of course you do know that, yet you chose to ignore that bit). Reading really IS fundamental.

And, unless YOU fall into the "GOP" category, I wasn't directing any assertions of cowardice at you. So why are you pouting and suggesting that I'm calling you one, when I said nothing of the sort?

Is there something you want to get off your chest?

[Hubert H. Hubert]

133. Perverse spin?

Now that's some heavy-duty irony.

Bleachers7 originally posted:

At least (the Democratic Party) is not a haven of cowards that want to dodge the draft.

Don't you love your country enough to defend it?

IOW, "If you don't love your country enough to defend it, you're a coward." Frankly, I can't say I entirely disagree with this statement. The problem is with the ridiculous notion that by going to Iraq you are somehow defending this country. Of course, Beelzebud nailed this in his reply.

It would have ended there, if it weren't for your need to 'enlighten' me as to the OP's true intent:

The GOP are cowards. They don't serve. They DO dodge not just drafts

Trouble is, the GOP is mentioned nowhere in the OP. And you've just added your own 'perverse spin' by even bringing it up.

I even provided examples (Bush, Quayle, Cheney, all of whom were draft age during Vietnam, not Iraq, but of course you do know that, yet you chose to ignore that bit). Reading really IS fundamental.

So you admit the above examples are completely irrelevant to a discussion about an IRAQ draft. Good.

And, unless YOU fall into the "GOP" category, I wasn't directing any assertions of cowardice at you. So why are you pouting and suggesting that I'm calling you one, when I said nothing of the sort?

Then your need to 'clarify' the OP is puzzling, to say the least.



Your posts in this thread have been some of the most dismissive, condescending pieces of trash I've ever had the misfortune to read on DU. I won't be having any such misfortune in the future, you can be sure of that.

I'm done here. Have a nice one.

[MADem]

135. You're done, because you're wrong.

Bleachers didn't say anything about Iraq. At all. Bleachers said that Democrats defend their country. And they DO. Kerry, Clark, JFK, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter...they all served. On active duty, not in some Champagne Unit in the rear with the gear.

And while the GOP is mentioned nowhere in the post, the Democrats are. So, what is the opposite number of that group? The friken Greens? Please.

I'm done here too. Please DO use your ignore feature. And check your mirror. That trash you speak of is likely a reflection.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

139. Ha! I lied.

This one is too easy to refute.

Bleachers didn't say anything about Iraq.

You're right, he didn't. He must've been talking about Vietnam. I forgot about that time warp that sent us all back to the early 70's. Although I do find it somewhat odd that the original post in this entire thread mentions Iraq in the first sentence.

Nice try.

[MADem]

140. Well, there's your first accurate statement so far today. You did lie.

You certainly did. I'm not surprised though.

But you refuted nothing, sorry. People of average intelligence can use historical facts to make points that are applicable to the present day. They don't have to live, like a two year old with no concept of time, in the present day.

Is that too tough a concept for you to wrap your mind around?

I'd say "Nice try" to you, too, but I wouldn't be sincere. That was incredibly lame.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

142. I'll give you this much

You're predictable.

I knew you would totally ignore the content of my post and make some lame snark about me "lying". The spin about "historical context" was creative enough, though. It still has absolutely nothing to do with Bleachers7's post.

You seem to have an awful lot invested in a post you didn't even make.

[MADem]

144. Lame snark about you lying? Read your subject line in your post above.

You brought that shit on yourself, and now you're CRYING about it? Gimme a break. :rofl:

And I'm not predictable. You don't even know me, so don't act like you do.

Look, this is a DISCUSSION board. The object here is to DISCUSS issues. You may call this being "invested" but that's simply your childish and perhaps embattled perception. You don't get to "own" a chunk of the debate here. If you want to duke it out with people privately, go offthread to do it--of course, you won't get any attention that way, so that might not be as much fun for you. Otherwise, be prepared to have your assertions--especially the halfassed ones--vigorously challenged.

Oh, and I don't spin. But you're sure trying like hell to do just that. Unsuccessfully, I might add.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

146. ROFLMAO!

You can't be serious!

You KNEW I was talking about lying about "I'm done here"! :rofl:

And I'm not predictable. You don't even know me, so don't act like you do.

I've lurked here almost as long as you've been posting. Unless every post you've ever made is a complete and utter sham, I know plenty about you.

Look, this is a DISCUSSION board. The object here is to DISCUSS issues.

Well, we certainly aren't meeting that objective, since you aren't DISCUSSING anything with anyone. You are trying to spin your way out of a situation you got into because you misread a post (several, actually.) If you want to talk about cowardice, be my guest. But please find another subthread. This one is supposed to be about whether those currently serving in Iraq are "defending" our country. Follow the posts backwards and it should become readily apparent.

[MADem]

147. You certainly are a piece of work. NT

[Hubert H. Hubert]

148. No argument there. n/t

;-)

[MADem]

149. Makes for a change. NT

[MADem]

104. You're being deliberately obtuse. The poster above was saying that the GOP

are the ones who do not serve in the military. They don't defend (as in GENERIC 'defend') their country. They like others to go and fight their wars, to endure hardship, family separation, the fear of combat stress, to get wounded, to die.

You decided to get all "high dudgeon" and apply the generic concept of defense to the specific conflict in Iraq. It is clear that the poster didn't mean "Iraq" when speaking of the GOP's aversion to service.

Cheap shot, and you didn't succeed in making any sort of valid point as a consequence. You just came off ... well, poorly.

[Beelzebud]

108. Iraq is the war we're fighting. This is not an abstract.

Using fear, and manipulation, to make a point about the war, is not what I expected from a Democratic majority.

I think we're starting to see true colors here. Some people are just fine with war, and the use of people as pawns on a chess board.

[MADem]

128. Oh PLEASE. Are you suggesting this shit is NEWS to you? Who are you, Rumplestilskin?

Did you just wake up after a twenty year nap? Cut the faux disappointment in a "Democratic Majority" whining. Gee, did you know the next Speaker will be a woman? Is that a surprise to you too?

If you haven't heard this discussion from Rangel before, then you're a political dilettante. You haven't paid attention to one of the most important discussions the Democrats, with Rangel as the point man, have been putting forth for some three years at least, on EVERY major talk show, in every conceivable forum. Frankly, you embarass yourself with your poor grasp on this issue. You can't claim to be out front in the antiwar effort and NOT know about this.

This is NOT a "fear and manipulation" exercise. It's a PUT UP, or SHUT UP exercise. It's a "Ya wanna play, ya gotta pay" exercise. But what this is NOT, and has not been for three years, is NEWS.

And it's directed at people who up to now have been fine with letting this war drag on so long as THEY don't have to pitch in one way or the other. The only thing that has changed is that this bill won't just be voted on, it will be PUBLICLY debated. Legislators will be forced to EXPLAIN themselves, and explain their votes.

I'm seeing your true colors, that's for sure. It would seem that you only want to get out there on the antiwar ramparts, where I have been ALL ALONG, when the shit gets personal. And you also like to accuse people of all sorts of shit without any proof whatsoever. Specifically: "..some people are just fine with war"--oh, please, child, you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about, and it plainly shows.

But see, that's the way you can spot a lousy argument--you just flat-out made that shit up. I am NOT just fine with war. I don't like using people as pawns. If you'd paid attention when I've posted on this subject before, you'd know that. I have a long history of opposition to this war, and I have it here in this forum. True colors, indeed. Your concern, near as I can surmise, is that now that you've finally woken up and seen that if the GOP passes Rangel's bill, and the GOP president signs it, gee, your ass might be on the line. So, if it takes that sort of "fear and manipulation" to get you and others to finally focus on what has been happening in Iraq, well, that's probably a good thing. Because otherwise, "Out of sight, out of mind" would continue to be the order of the day.

[Renew Deal]

112. Just giving you

the counter argument for the freep types and anyone wanting to dodge the draft.

[Guaranteed]

111. The anti-draft people are going to do nothing but amplify the Repuke talking points.

Why some Dems can't see why this needs to be done- I don't know.

[Norquist Nemesis]

115. That's what I'm seeing

Catching up after three days away and ...*sigh* Seeing such things as "vile proposal" and "vile Rangel" really take the cake in over the top.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that "draft" is emotionally connected to military enlistment. But, Rangel is proposing Service to Country, military being one option. If he were saying Conscription, that's a different matter. He's not.

[MADem]

123. Well, in a roundabout way you answered the question!!!

It's an unproductive exercise to carry water for the opposing team, but some just don't seem to grasp that concept, do they?

It's easy for the GOP to sling arrows at Rangel now, but there will come a day when they'll have to be either with this war or against it by their vote on that draft. And if they can't bring themselves to make that gutwrenching decision to provide human assets for the conflict, then perhaps the conflict just isn't worth it...oil or no oil. Assuming, of course, that they want to be reelected!

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. rattling the cage is for when you're inside.

When you're outside, running things, your goal isn't to "open up a public debate".

Charlie, you run things now. You can skip the part where you're trying to get the ruling party to talk about troop levels and injustice. You can do it directly.

[Cleita]

131. His rationale then and I'm sure it is still the same, is that the

draft takes kids from all classes. Today, the volunteer military feeds off the poor and disadvantaged mostly. So those people, who don't have a child in the military, but who are running the status quo, don't feel any obligation to question this war and why we are still there.

[Guaranteed]

136. If he's worth anything as a representative, he'll take that into account in his bill. nt

[onenote]

137. has anyone bothered to check foxnews.com?

You won't find the Rangel story being played up at all. And that's hardly a surprise. Repub/conservatives hardly want to be seen as suggesting that there is something wrong with people serving in the military (even though the repub/conservative leaders hardly ever do). They would be sending a message to their "heartland supporters" -- some of whom do have sons,daughters, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters serving and dying -- that they alone should shoulder the burden and that it shouldn't be borne by others as well.

They'd be spitting in the eye of those midwestern moms if they said, in effect,your kids, okay, our kids, no way.