If you WANTED a draft bill to FAIL you could make draft age up to 42 for women and men

[IndyOp]

Like Congressmember Rangel did -->

I am a 41-year-old female, so I would be drafted if Rangel's bill passes. I am not perturbed by the Congressmember. I am discouraged at the ongoing debate at DU about Rangel based on a brief statement on a Sunday morning talk show when MOST people contributing to the discussion do not appear to have heard or thought about what Congressmember Rangel said.

What he did yesterday was to present a choice:
IF IRAN & SYRIA... THEN A DRAFT WILL BE REQUIRED.

So what does he want us to do?
DEMAND NO IRAN, NO SYRIA, TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

How do I know what Rangel wants? I googled...

Notice how the good Congressmember dooms the legislation to not pass, on purpose, by making the draft mandatory up to 42 years of age -->

Notice also how the Republican Leadership has run scared from debating the bill because it forces the nasty truths about war into the media, into the minds of all of us. -->

This is a win/win for anti-war activists like me...

RANGEL REINTRODUCES DRAFT BILL

WASHINGTON - Lawmaker Says Volunteer Military May be Overwhelmed by Military Challenges in Iran, North Korea and Syria requiring more troops who will have to be drafted

Congressman Charles Rangel today introduced new legislation to reinstate the military draft that will include draftees up to 42 years of age.

"Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not," Congressman Rangel said. "If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries? We may have no other choice but a draft."

The bill would mandate military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Deferments would be allowed only for completion of high school up to the age of 20, and for reasons of health, conscience or religious belief. Recruits not needed by the military in any given year would be required to perform some national civilian service.

"My bill conforms to the age standards that have been set by the Army itself," Congressman Rangel said, referring to the Army's recent announcement raising the top age for Army volunteers from 39 to 42. "With volunteers now being accepted up to the age of 42, it makes sense to cap the age of draftees at 42," Congressman Rangel said.

<snip>

"The Pentagon's own researchers have reported that the military is broken and there's no plan to fix it," Congressman Rangel said. "It's not unusual for active-duty and Reserve units to see two and three deployments. Troops are spending about a third of the time on deployment, instead of a fifth of the time, as preferred, to adequately rest, train and rebuild units.

”Our military is more like a mercenary force than a citizen militia. It is dominated by men and women who need an economic leg-up. Bonuses of up to $40,000 and a promise of college tuition look very good to someone from an economically depressed urban or rural community. But, as events unfold in Iran, Syria and North Korea and become even more dangerous, at what point will the risks outweigh the attraction of money--even to the hungriest recruits?

"I don't expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. As the President speaks of a national response involving the military option, military service should be a shared sacrifice. Right now the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who with limited options chose military service and now find themselves in harm's way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people's children do the fighting.

"It is shameful for high ranking government officials who have never placed themselves in harm's way to promote military solutions as a substitute for diplomacy. It's disheartening to hear the most strident champions of war in Iraq or anywhere else who have never thought or voted in Congress to send their own children to war.

"I dare anyone to try to convince me that this war is not being fought predominantly by tough, loyal, and patriotic young men and women from the barren hills and towns of rural and underprivileged neighborhoods in urban America where unemployment is high and opportunities are few. As we see who are the troops coming home wounded and killed, I challenge anyone to tell me that the wealthiest have not been excluded from that roll call.

The Republican Leadership responded to my first bill by procedurally preventing debate on the issues it raised; let us see how they try to avoid facing the question of shared sacrifice this time.

Rangel doesn't want a military draft. He wants to end the insanity of war.

:patriot:

[bluestateguy]

1. I will not be a part of shared sacrifice for this war

because I oppose it, and always have opposed it. The sacrifice should not have to be borne by me.

[IndyOp]

3. I am underwhelmed by your ability to think of others...

"The sacrifice should not have to be borne by me." I disagree.

Some sacrifice should be borne by us all -- the richest nation on earth once again committing war crimes. IMO, we should all be suffering -- either because we serve in the military OR because we are not doing enough to stop the horror experienced by Iraqis and by our troops and we should all suffer for this.

My take on it...

[LiberalFighter]

5. How better to oppose war than by requiring everyone to share in it?

It is much easier to have war if people don't have to make sacrifices personally. If people don't care about the loss of a spouse, brother/sister, son/daughter, other relative, friend, neighbor, co-worker then they won't oppose fighting a war. And won't oppose doing it the right way if war is necessary. Otherwise those that have a stake in whether we have any war and why we have a war should demand a say.

[Ian David]

8. Being a Conscientious Objector requires noble sacrifice as well.

You may not share the sacrifice "for this war," but you can still be called upon to sacrifice "for peace" or "against this war."

Please note that currently, in order to be a Conscientious Objector, you have to be opposed to all war, not just this war.

That disqualifies me. I was in favor of going in to Afghanistan. Silly me. I thought the grown-ups (Like Powell) were in charge, and that Bush was just a figure head.

There are options other than Conscientious Objector for those who oppose this war, but not all wars. Those options include either getting out of Dodge, or submitting yourself to military trial and punishment-- also a sacrifice.

Personally, as someone who doesn't qualify as a Conscientious Objector, I would choose an option that gets me free military and combat training.

Keep in mind that if one is going to try and avoid a draft-- by leaving the country or just going underground-- that first availing oneself of free, military training on the taxpayer's dime may be personally useful, but it also costs the military money, and carries higher legal penalties. Draft dodging can't get you a death sentence-- desertion can.

Personally (as someone who doesn't qualify as a Conscientious Objector) I'd get my eight weeks of boot camp, and as much training as I could get before being asked to deploy, and then I would pursue legal action from within the military justice system. That could get you sent to the worst sort of jail or even get you executed. But it can also change the system from within.

These are my own, personal opinions and not those of any other organization.

Also, this is not meant to be advice-- only hypothetical musings-- and I could very well be mistaken.

[provis99]

12. is this forum being taken over by selfish libertarians?

typical attitude of libertarians. I ain't going to give up anything; let the poor guy over give it up for me and my smugness.

[Old and In the Way]

2. It would be odd for the Party that says we are facing a clash of civilizations;

that we have to fight them there so we don't fight them here;that has had us on a war footing longer than WW2....not to want a draft. I wonder why? Because they really don't want the American people to get that concerned about the GWOT. Just go shopping and let them run their profits-generating war without end. I know Charlie's intention is not to institute a draft for this war, but we really need a serious debate on where this administration is taking this country.

[IndyOp]

4. That is what Rangel wants and what the Rethugs fear -

a serious debate on where our nation is going. I would argue that the problem is not just this administration - it is a long, long history of military abuse of nations whose riches we desire.

My fav book: "Killing Hope: 250 Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum (ex-CIA).

If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ... invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing governments ... suppressing movements for social change ... assassinating political leaders ... perverting elections ... manipulating labor unions ...manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...torture ... biological warfare ...depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

Read the full details in:
Killing Hope - Over 250 Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II by William Blum <http://www.killinghope.org>

"Far and away the best book on the topic." Noam Chomsky

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present

Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots

[warrens]

6. Better yet, make it only for the wealthy and elected officials

That would make the bastards think twice.

[Nite Owl]

7. Exactly, it's a peace plan.

And a direct hit at McCain. Where will his new troops come from? When support the troops becomes send your son or daughter people will start thinking of the real cost of war.

[IndyOp]

9. Direct hit at McCain - Very good point! (n/t)

:kick:

[Jed Dilligan]

10. And while "anti-war activists" think they're playing

really clever mindgames with the electorate, the electorate is thinking, "Fuck you. No, I mean really. FUCK. YOU."

[librechik]

11. Sam Seder says Rangel introduced this bill in 04--and voted "no" himself!

Only Murtha and one other Rep voted yes.

I wish people would not panic over this canny political move. Rangel intends to hold the Pukkkes accountable for their stupid decisions, not to kill your children.