Let's all take a deep breath. Ain't gonna be no draft.

[smoogatz]

Rangel's trying to make a point about social justice here, and the whole idea is to make affluent white people squirm a little bit. This debate is really about social justice--nobody in the military wants a draft, and almost no one in government even wants to talk about it, and Bush will never sign it into law (otherwise, you know, Babs and Jenna might have to wear camo after labor day). Charlie's been talking about this issue for years, and he has a legitimate point--the poor are forced to "volunteer" for the military, while the affluent go to college. Poverty affects minorities in this country disproportionately, so the current "all volunteer" system is really a racist, classist trap that exempts affluent whites from having to do the nation's military dirty work. And that's a serious problem that ought to be debated.

[xultar]

1. Exactly. If rich kids were in danger Bushco would think twice about

being so pro-war.

Too bad people here @ DU didn't get that.

We're always so quick to hang our own we forget who the real enemy is.

Wise up DU.

[havocmom]

3. A post from a different thread on same subject

(by moi: )

He issued a wake up call to Americans to stay involved and do the OVERSIGHT citizens need to do if democracy is gonna function.

Too many people figure we elected a (barely) DEM majority to the Hill and we are all saved by the 'someone' who will ride in and fix things. Democracy is NOT a spectator sport! Someone is not gonna save America, WE ARE.

Rangel knows we have a long way to go before we have the numbers to really fix much at all. We need THE PEOPLE to be involved and we need it NOW. Once BFEE starts the fighting in Iran (and their buds start taking profits on even broader war) it will be very dangerous. We will all be left with cleaning up an even bigger mess and we will all be a lot less safe.

If it takes considering the very real prospect of a draft to break people away from NFL and Dance With the Stars, fine.

WE THE PEOPLE bear the ultimate responsibility for OVERSIGHT. And too many just don't want to trouble their beautiful minds...

Rangel has a method to shake people away from all the distractions. And he is right, if the BFEE goes to war in Iran, we do not have the troop count to do it. Once troops are committed in Iran, oh, well, we have to start sending massive amounts of people and money. BFEE business partners get to continue the obscene alchemy of turning blood into gold and America is stuck sending its future off as fodder for that alchemy.

Wake up DU. It is NOT Rangel who is being the bad guy, it is the people who do the alchemy. Rangel wants to save your kids by showing the blunt truth! He is laying waste to his own political career for the greater good.

[xultar]

12. AMEN!!!!!!

[caledesi]

41. Thank you!! I "got it" immediately and I am no rocket scientist

although I did stay at a Holiday Inn. LOL!

DUers, go here and read this and tell me that Rangel REALLY wants the draft instituted.

http://demcaucus.townhall.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7B34E9D544-8D6F-488A-A39D-DE07261A754A%7D#refresh-at-bottom

When he proposed this a few years ago, even HE didn't vote for it. Doesn't that tell you something.

After this all over the media, anti-war sentiment will climb to about 99% and this will pressure * to get the hell out.

[Junkdrawer]

2. IF they want to invade Iran, they'll need a draft...AND a new 9/11...

The people of this country won't stand for a draft unless it's WW III, and THAT will take a terror attack larger than 9/11.


Just saying...

[smoogatz]

7. Despite Cheney's delusions to the contrary, military action against Iran

is pretty much off the table. The Dem Congress won't authorize or fund it, which means there's no way for Bush to do anything sustained there (like an invasion). He could do Special Forces stuff (apparently they already are--see Sy Hersh), and airstrikes, but that's about it. Ain't gonna be no invasion of Iran.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Big IF, but imagine that Topeka Kansas were "terror nuked"...

and it was "traced" to Hezbollah and then to Iran...

[jtm111]

17. BINGO

I was worried that this thread was clueless.

Rangel's chips could be called in an hour from now if there were an incident in America. Republicans would get the cover of democrats to get the draft.

THAT is why I don't think Rangel is kidding, or posturing.

And so I'm trying a different tack of saying, what if there were a draft? I just don't know that it would be so bad because it would include humanitarian service as an option. This is the kind of thing that could change our culture in a positive way. I don't sense any idealism on this thread, just eyes shut tight not wanting to face the content of the situation in front of us.

[smoogatz]

19. Then the proper response would probably be to nuke Tehran.

War over. No invasion necessary.

[Junkdrawer]

22. And once we nuked Hiroshima, it was all over and a US presence in Japan..

and the Far East was unnecessary, right?

[smoogatz]

26. Point taken.

You're right. But I don't see Rangel as an unwitting pawn of the neocons here. He's representing his constituents; this is an issue that makes sense if you're from a tough neighborhood in Queens.

[Junkdrawer]

27. I agree. Rangel is not an "unwitting pawn of the neocons".

I was just reacting to the blanket certainty of "There's not going to be a draft."

Events, real or manufactured, always drive policy.

[Strelnikov_]

29. And You Think, Under Your Senario, There Would Be No Draft, With Or Without Rangel?

Come on.

[Junkdrawer]

31. Huh?

I'm arguing that, under this scenario, there would be a draft, with or without Rangel.

As I said above, I was reacting to the OP's blanket certainty of "There's not going to be a draft."

[Strelnikov_]

38. My Bad n/t

[Buzz Clik]

16. But if they have the draft and can generate a fake threat (again), then off we go.

No draft, no invasion of Iran or North Korea.

[smoogatz]

30. If there's another attack, they can fire up the draft with or without

Charlie Rangel. The old selective service mechanisms are all still in place. It could be done in a matter of days.

[Missy M]

4. It wouldn't have taken the American people so long to......

oppose the war. Why are some on DU not getting his point.

[jtm111]

5. I could see a scenario

First, I don't object to what Rangel is proposing. He was careful to point out that non-violent service, including social justice and humanitarian service, would suffice as much as military service. I think this would be a good thing. Any bill that came out of congress would be very different from what the draft used to be. According to Rangel, it would be far easier, and actually desirable, for people to take the non-violent route.

But don't count Rangel out so quickly. If there is even the slightest desire for the draft among republicans, Rangel's proposal would be the perfect way to get it; they could establish the draft and be able to say they were reluctantly following the democrat leadership.

Anyway, I have nothing against mandatory service to your country, as long as there is a non-violent option.

Just my 2 cents.

[BlueManDude]

6. We understand the point - and now is not the time to make it.

He needs to realize that the time for amusing grandstand ploys is over and he is expected to govern - not shoot off his mouith and waster everyone's time while handing voters a reason to wonder if Democrats can govern.

[smoogatz]

10. I disagree. He's got a bigger megaphone now

and he's got good reason to use it. And in fact I don't think the majority of the American people have given much thought to the way in which military service is, in effect, compulsory for the disproportionately minority poor, while affluent whites are exempt.

[librechik]

9. exactly--don't panic--get to work!

Now that we won, we have to do a lot of work to secure our power--but first we have to end the war.

Call your representatives and tell them to get us the hell out of Iraq before we have to draft their kids.

Do the same to the #%$@@!!*** media outlets.

Time's a wastin! It's the Holidays and we're sending 20,000 more to die!

[jtm111]

14. whistling past the graveyard, literally

Rangel rhetoric + terror attack = draft.

You guys are acting like there's no way this could happen.

If he didn't mean it, he should have kept his mouth shut; now he's out there with perfect cover for republicans who in a heartbeat could want the draft, for example, a bus or train bombing in America. This could happen tomorrow.

Rangel has to know this. Therefore I conclude he is dead serious, and we should take him at his word. I'm saying mandatory service might not be such a bad thing because there would be non-violent options as well.

[librechik]

40. ahahahahahahahah!

stop, you're killing me!

But you reminded me that this plan makes Dems look stronger on National Security than the Pukkkes. None of thise so-called military supporting patriots have suggested a National Service Requirement. And they say Dems have no ideas!

Trust me, this bill will pass right after we get Universal Health and a Living Wage constitutional amendment.

Welcome to DU!

enjoy your stay!

[smoogatz]

45. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, if there's another major attack

we'll probably see a draft with or without Charlie Rangel--and it won't be about universal service with a non-military option, which is what he's proposing. If you go to selectiveservice.gov, it's apparent that the first wave of draftees will be those with "special skills"--i.e., health-care professionals. If there's a real, full-fledged draft, they'll use a version of the old Vietnam lottery system. Rangel may feel that a draft is inevitable, I don't know--if that's the case then he's doing his job by getting out in front of the debate. Either way, he's pressing an issue that's near and dear to the heart sof his constituents. It's ultimately all about social justice.

[The2ndWheel]

11. So a debate with no consequences?

Since there will always be people in poverty(the very existence of a "middle" class requires it, no matter who it affects), they will still end up dying in future warfare(which won't end).

edit: consequences for the wealthy. Obviously the poor will still suffer, be it killing and dying for the state, or living in poverty.

[smoogatz]

15. Europe, in general, has figured this deal out.

Universal service (non-military option easily available in most cases) combined with generous social benefits available to everyone. We're fifty years behind the civilized world in that regard.

[The2ndWheel]

21. They're dead empires

If the US military wasn't making global economics work, then at least one of the old European empires would be back up and running. If they had to protect their economic interests in a more direct way, more of their tax money would go to the military than their social programs.

[smoogatz]

24. Ireland is a dead empire?

Okey dokey...

[The2ndWheel]

28. Ireland is the example you pick?

Of all the European powers that shaped the world over the course of human history, you pick Ireland to prove a point?

[smoogatz]

32. My point had nothing to do with great powers shaping human history--

that was YOUR point. I think. Which isn't really relevant to the current debate, IMO.

[The2ndWheel]

37. You brought up European countries, in general

as having figured out how to manage universal service and social services for all, and being decades ahead of us.

I was just saying that those countries in Europe no longer have anything to defend. So they can take most of their tax money and have it for social services, as opposed to keeping up an expanding military power, the way we have to, since we are currently the world's empire. We won't be eventually, but we are currently.

My original point was that if Rangle is just bringing up the draft to point out social injustice, that's fine. Except if there is no threat of actually bringing the draft back into reality, then it's mostly just mental masturbation, since the US is still expanding. Either go with the draft, or stay with the profressional military. If there is no threat of a draft, then the poor will continue to bascially be forced to fight and die. We're not changing our economy, so the poor will still be there. That's all I was trying to say. I didn't mention Europe until you did.

[smoogatz]

39. If the cold war was still on, you'd be right.

I think Europe pretty much has the military it needs these days, collectively. The US, on the other hand, spends way more on its military than the rest of the world combined--but you already know that.

As for Rangel, I don't think this debate is mental masturbation to his constituents. From his website:

"Hispanics make up a large plurality (46 percent) of the population of New York’s 15th, with non-Hispanic Blacks comprising approximately 37 percent of the population. The largest concentration of blacks in the 15th is in west-central Harlem. East Harlem is dominated by a large Puerto Rican population; West Harlem and Washington Heights farther north have large Dominican communities. Most of the 15th’s non-Hispanic whites live in the south end of the 15th in the Upper East side, the Upper West side (which includes the top portion of Central Park), a small portion of East Harlem, which is home to a longtime Italian-American community, and a portion of the Inwood neighborhood at the north."

http://rangel.house.gov/district-description.shtml

[The2ndWheel]

47. That's the thing

As of November 20th, 2006, we still have this uni-polar world, where one military dominates the globe. Europe basically shares our interests, so neither side faces a threat from the other. We have bases all over the world, so no European country needs to project itself anywhere. If the US ever decreased it's military enough so that we weren't able to cover the planet in a few hours, other centers of power would start to pop up again. Maybe we don't need to spend half a trillion dollars on our military do be able to do that, but unfortunately our military is the only thing that keeps that from happening. I could be wrong, but just my opinion.

When I say mental masturbation, I don't mean the topic itself. I just mean that if there is no chance the draft comes back, why put it out there? If it's for a debate on how this country treats the citizens, bring up that topic. But if you talk draft, but nothing actually happens, why would the wealthy class give a rat's ass?

[smoogatz]

48. Other power centers--? Where?

You've got to have money to have a big, high-tech military, so I guess we're talking China, the Middle East, and maybe a few of the Oil-Stans. All of our "forward bases" except Iraq, Afghanistan and a few in places like Kazakhstan are still pretty much designed to consolidate victories in WWII and the Korean stalemate. The Chinese literally own us, and we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq. How does any of that benefit Europe? I guess a good case could be made for the intervention in the Balkans, which wouldn't have happened had Clinton not been pushing for it--but it wouldn't have happened if a Republican had been in the WH, either, most likely.

As I said before, I think the "volunteer" system we have now is a subject near and dear to Rangel's constituents, the great majority of whom are latino or black. And it's hard to beat the notion that social class and ethnicity determine who goes off to die in Iraq as a metaphor for broader social injustice in the U.S. Social injustice is a matter of life and death, is what he's saying.

[jtm111]

23. you restore my faith

I'm new to DU (actually an old user before it was cool, but returning after avoiding politics) - anyway, I'm new to DU and I was hoping there were some good old fashioned idealist liberals around. To see you refer positively to European universal service gives me hope. Thanks. I think the only way we can transform this culture is to re-connect people to the idea of service to others, genuine service for the common good.

[smoogatz]

46. The common good.

Something Republicans never talk about. Why is that?

[INdemo]

13. You are correct but

The average voter is going to interpret this draft issue as "The Democrats want to reinstate the draft" I dont think the issue would ever reach the House floor but the seed has been planted in the minds of voters and the media doesn't bother to explain all of the reasoning Congressman Rangel has about the draft issue..The voters are focused on one thing and that is "They're gonna bring back the draft" and this is a dangerous issue for the Democrat's.Rangel should just be quiet.

The Democrats haven't even taken control of Congress yet and all ready Bush is squirming and I can see what the Republicans are trying to do and that is if there is a withdrawal they want the public to think this was in the works before the election but it was confidential.
The WP has and article about this today.

[smoogatz]

18. Rangel's been talking about this for years.

It should come as a surprise to no one.

[INdemo]

20. The media will use this to discredit the Democrats

check this out if its still on......I rest my case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2764268

[smoogatz]

43. Jesus Christ could return to Earth tomorrow and announce that God

was a Democrat, and the media would accuse him of giving politically motivated handouts to the poor. They don't need a reason other than their pro-corporate bias to "discredit" Democrats.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Won't come as a surprise? You're kidding, right?

A huge fraction of the US public thinks that we found WMDs in Iraq. They think Gore owns a zinc mine.

Sorry, but Americans have really crappy abilities to sort out fact from fiction.

[smoogatz]

34. Valid point--but of course I said "should," not "will." n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. True enough

Just like he was when he mentioned it before.

If the reaction it's getting here on DU is any gage, he was correct in his assumption that this is a good way to change the how people think about war in this country.

It think we can safely assume that this won't pass, but the fear that it might is bringing about some interesting conversations.

[smoogatz]

44. It sure is.

A lot of young, male DUers are pretty rattled--for good reason.

[endarkenment]

35. Vote Democratic: we will kill your children!

Great point.

[smoogatz]

42. Vote Republican and kill somebody else's children.

Look, Rangel's talking about something that's near and dear to the hearts of his constituents, which are underserved and over-killed by the current system. He's doing his job is a Congressman. Before shooting your mouth off, you might want to look here: http://rangel.house.gov/district-description.shtml

If you can't be bothered, here's the ethnic breakdown of Rangel's district:

"Hispanics make up a large plurality (46 percent) of the population of New York’s 15th, with non-Hispanic Blacks comprising approximately 37 percent of the population."

[LeftishBrit]

36. I would strongly oppose a draft here BUT

I have always said that if we did have one, we would never have been in this war, as Tony has two sons of military age.

[Bobbie Jo]

49. Kick