To all who are so upset about Rangel and his draft proposal

[XOKCowboy]

from someone who lived with the draft. Get over your outrage and realize that your outrage is Charlie Rangel's point. It made the "war on Iraq" and all of the military aspirations of the Bush administration and the neocons very personal didn't it? It put your ass on the line and deprived you of any voice in the decision didn't it? Well welcome to my high school years and it was only because the draft ended a year after I was eligible to be shipped off to Vietnam that the fear of being drafted into an illegal, unjust war ended then. Many of my friends and classmates were drafted and came back changed forever. Some never came back. Some volunteered under a false sense of patriotism and most ot them came back very disillusioned. Some went just because they had no other options. This was going on all through my high school years. I was one of those with very few options. My parents weren't rich or connected. My father (a WWII vet) once told me that he'd support me if I needed to dodge enlistment! It made me follow the news coverage we had at the time a lot more closely because I knew that it could have been ME in those rice paddies they showed. My lottery number was 136 also. Like I said it makes any war more personal and that's the point.

So chill out. Rangel will rig his proposal like he did last time to fail to become law. He knows it'll never be passed. Heck he even voted against his own resolution 2 yrs ago but he still proposed it to point out to the public that if the Neocons and BushCo (including McCain ) have their way we will need a draft. Period. Don't get mad at the Dems or Rangel. It's not our war. It's THEIR WAR and this is a way to point out to the rest of America that if they want it to continue, it's their kids that will be fighting it.

That is why I support Charlie Rangel. Neither he or I support a draft. Just a dialogue.

[Kagemusha]

1. Ah, I see. It's all a big joke then.

Ha. Ha.

Very funny.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Absolutely not a joke n/t

[jhrobbins]

2. Are people mad at Rangel? I cannot imagine why

rational people can't see the reasoning behind his proposal - it seems imminently rational and fair to me.

[dorktv]

5. Unless someone thinks Bill=passed, I cannot not see how pointing out

that a draft would wake everyone up to how messed up things are already is a bad thing.

Right now there are not a vast number of Americans intimately connected to this war...but talking about a draft makes people think "what about me and mine?"

[Kagemusha]

34. This is not to be snarky. But rather, to say how someone might take this

Someone might think about "what about me and mine" and ask, "what about me and mine butt, who's going to protect it? I thought these Democrats were on my side but, look, this powerful committee chairman guy's proposing a draft. Gee, the Republicans never mentioned a draft. McCain never said we needed to draft people. Bush never said... uh so why are these Democrats saying it's time for ME to go and fight? What did I do? I thought we had a volunteer army! I thought I voted for, you know, left wing people who don't like the war... what gives?"

Just saying... I can understand if someone was to react in that manner.

[dorktv]

43. I suppose if someone does not pay any attention they would think that.

And if they did think that, perhaps they will write a letter, or make a phone call and get involved.

Which would be a good thing actually...In Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas he talks about the sudden change in a person's life when they become politically active by actually seeing the action in their lives. This could do that.

[loyalsister]

45. The idea is to get people to look deeper

Shake them up, so that they look not just at who the sponsor is, but how the vote comes down. How the dialogue evolves.
How, for example can Bushco justify this war and continually resending the existing troops when they know it is causing severe damage?

How can they add troops when the country doesn't want a draft? If the admin truly believes in this war and cares about the well being of our solddiers, they should by extension support a draft.
OR
They should support the well being of potential soldiers under a draft and get us the hell out.

If the legislative branch has a vote on that choice, the offices should be flooded with mail.

[Kagemusha]

47. In the abstract, getting people to look deeper is a worthy goal.

In reality, this is POLITICAL SUICIDE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Shaking the public up and making the public even more fearful than under a Republican Congress with a Repulican President may be a worthy goal in terms of spreading the seeds of activism but, in terms of, like, you know, actual politics, which I assumed still actually matters, it's shaking the public up in a way that looks 100% the Democratic Party's own fault. The party's free ride ended the minute the House and Senate were both confirmed to have been won. From here on, the blame for frightening statements from chairmen of critical House committees falls upon the entire party.

Maybe that's worth it to you and others making the same point. I see it as a lack of a survival instinct. I cease to care about Rangel's intent at the point where the consequences are mainfestly injurious to the long-term political health of the party I would like to look upon as "the good guys" in terms of getting the mess the Republicans made under control.

[pnwmom]

41. For one thing, most average Americans will only hear the media spin.

Which is:

"Top Democrat" or +"leading Democrat" or "senior Democrat" proposes draft.

Since most average Americans who voted for Democrats don't have any idea of the reasoning behind his proposal, they will feel betrayed. They elected Dems to get us out of Iraq, not to start up a draft.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. it is that duplicitous manipulative mendacity part

that ticks a lot of people off. Either he is a militarisitic idiot who really wants to reactivate the draft or he is a manipulative asshole who likes to play games with people's emotions to make a point. Either way, his bi-annual stunt pisses me off.

[dorktv]

3. I do not think a lot of people understand his point or just do not care

to understand it. Not just on the DU but everywhere.

[Kagemusha]

22. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You may substitute other words for "hell" as desired, including: Vietnam, Iraq, Iran...

[dorktv]

44. Afghanistan, Korea, WWII, Persian Gulf...well maybe not that last one.

Not ever war we have fought has been like Vietnam.

[mike_c]

4. it did NONE of those things and I condemned it nonetheless....

I am 51 years old. I have nothing to fear from the draft. My only child is female and is quite old enough to take care of herself if it comes to that. I'm like you-- one of the kids who grew up with the draft during the Vietnam era.

I still think Rangel's idea is political cowardice at best. The war against Iraq is a war crime. Rangel and other memebers of Congress should not need to stand behind political cover to put a stop to it. That's all Rangel's draft bill really is-- an attempt to create sufficient misery that Americans will overwhelmingly oppose the war, and Congress can act without having to check their spines and consciences first. Congress wants cover. They don't want to risk opposing the war-- especially since so many of them supported it-- but they can see that the mood of the country is changing, so they want more cover before they do the right thing.

Same as it ever was.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. The whole intent is about awareness

awareness > interest > desire > action. It is a classic model in motivating a "buy-in". This was not done to convince those of us who know this a wrong war. It is to motivate masses of people to comprehend the enormity of this war and BushCo's illegal actions.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Yeah we all got what the intent was.

The effect on the other hand was quite different.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. It's not about wanting the Draft - it's about exposing Hypocrites

..like I've said before.

[acmejack]

9. That it has done.

The adamant opposition here to even considering nonmilitary national service speaks volumes.
snip>
Rangel and Jefferson Agree on a National Service Program
by Thom Hartmann

Many of the world's mature democracies require every high-school graduate to serve a year or two of either military or nonprofit service, as Congressman Charlie Rangel has proposed every year for some time now. At first blush, this may seem like an oppression by government, but history shows it's actually one of the best ways to prevent a military from becoming its own insular and dangerous subculture, to prevent the lower ranks of the military from being overwhelmed by people trying to escape poverty, and to keep military actions of the government accountable to the people.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1121-27.htm

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. And is expounded upon

very well at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2775032&mesg_id=2775032

[Kagemusha]

14. You've gotta be kidding me. The nonmilitary national service is worse.

That's indentured servitude at the government's behest. At least in the military they treat you like an adult and give you a proper day's pay for a proper day's work for serving your country. There's no way in hell that the nonprofit service does anything to prevent the military from becoming (excuse me, "becoming"? as if it's not now?) an insular and dangerous (...it's the military) subculture, to prevent the lower ranks from being overwhelmed by people trying to escape poverty (I'm sorry, this phenomenon is news?) and to keep military actions accountable to the people. (Which in the past was done by draftees complaining to Congress. That would take Congress getting off its fat a-- and doing something with the knowledge.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. Freedom is not always won with words...

and freedom and liberty is not an unalienable right granted for free. Participation is central to the concept of the individual as "sovereign".

[Kagemusha]

18. When did we become advocates of the Starship Troopers world?....

Since when does freedom and liberty and the right to participate in democracy come only to those who serve in the armed forces?

Edit: Uh, and let me mention this little thing.

"and freedom and liberty is not an unalienable right granted for free." <-- You realize that's the 180 degree opposite of what the Constitution of the United States of America says, don't you? The Constitution says everyone is born with the right to freedom and liberty, that it is the default position, that it is only to be infringed on an individual basis via sworn testimony before a jury of one's peers.

Just thought I'd uh, mention that...

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Indeed I had the same thought about the 180 turn we've seen

here from the bring back the draft crowd. Citizenship, a constitutionally protected right for those born in this country, suddenly has become a privilege to be earned.

The head exploding statements abound: "to be anti-war you must be pro-draft", "a draft will prevent bad wars", "this time the draft will be fair", and of course "freedom requires slavery". How marvelously bent we are. The bullshit media system has done its job well, the twisted viral memes have corrupted reasonable men and women, we advocate providing the war machine with a fresh new stream of bodies to end war, we advocate forced service to be free, and we convince ourselves that these are good and reasonable ideas. The disastrous wreckage of political thought among the people in the end game of the global capitalist system is a wonder to behold.

[wuushew]

20. Except the United States started every war except WWII

We cause the very threat to our freedom that we claim a draft necessitates.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. That is a bit of an overreach.

Every war? Every recent war we have been involved with over the last 100 years? 50 years? What?

[wuushew]

30. Everyone pre-United Nations

also Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Afghanistan were all us attacking first.

What did the "U.N. Wars" accomplish? For protecting the world's access to Kuwait oil we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts, massively damaged Iraqi infrastructure and spewed depleted uranium all over the place. The conflict also saw environmental degradation via the numerous oil fires and spills. George Bush the elder was the one who began the conflict between Iraq and the United States and then camped out in Saudi Arabia pissing Bin Laden off.


Same thing with Korea, the North had the whole thing wrapped up until the United States pushed the North Koreans back to the Yalu dragging the Chinese into the meat grinder. Sure it was an international action, but with Russia unwisely boycotting the Security Council it really was just cover for the U.S. to experiment with its containment theories. A communist Korea would have had twice land area and population With the North's superior hydroelectric and manufacturing capacity perhaps an eventual Chinese or Vietnamese style quasi-free market evolution may have occurred instead of a paranoid Stalinist state which doubled as a nuclear trip wire in the far East.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. We did not start WWI.

Although we certainly did not have an overwhelming reason to be in that fight, we did not start it. We also did not start the Korean War. We certainly have been belligerant I'm just suggesting that you avoid such categorical statements as 'we started all wars' as a single counter example renders your assertion false.

[wuushew]

39. We declared war on Germany did we not?

Wilson promised to keep us out of war in the 1916 election. Germany made no secret of warning Americans not to board ships headed into the war zone and the Lusitania WAS carrying munitions and other war material.

NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

The Zimmerman note was elaborate propaganda manipulated by the British to get us to enter the war.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Yes sure but we did not start the war. nt.

[spoony]

46. Yeah, liberty is all about forced participation, lol n/t

[TahitiNut]

16. I'm a strong advocate of a National Service Program for exactly the reasons cited.

I have been for decades. While I was only a bit pleased with the transformation of the Selective Service System in 1970 back to a lottery-based system, but with few deferments, by far the greatest objection I and my peers (draftees) had against the system was the gender bias and corruptions of privilege. A system in which national service is equitably shared ACROSS THE SPECTRUM of public/national needs is far, far preferable for such a multitude of reasons it defies cataloging them.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Go sign up.

"by far the greatest objection I and my peers (draftees) had against the system was the gender bias and corruptions of privilege."

I guess you had different peers in the 60's and early 70's than I. Our greatest objection was that THE GOVERNMENT WAS TRYING TO KILL US FOR A BULLSHIT WAR. But that was just the folks I hung out with. I don't quite recall thinking that it would be much better if the government were also trying to kill my friends who were girls. Then again it was a long time ago.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Hypocrites: as in saying one thing and doing another.

For example proposing legislation that you then vote against.

[bluedogyellowdog]

7. It would be in completely poor taste

for a solid progressive to introduce legislation to repeal the 13th and 14th amendments, repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and reinstate slavery even if they did so just to make a point about racism.

It would be in equally poor taste to introduce legislation to repeal the 19th amendment and ban women from voting, done tongue in cheek of course to make a point about sexism.

What's the difference here?

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Beats me.

It seems that you and I are too dull to 'get it', or so I've been repeatedly told.

[jhrobbins]

10. I agree with this poster - I love this country very much....

and Rangel's proposal seems to support this notion. What is wrong with having young people in service to the things we say are important - he says that he wants young people to serve in many ways - not so much the draft (there are certainly ways to address the opposition to war - this one or any other), but in social services. If we say we believe that the poor and disenfranchised can be helped by programs that serve this, I think it is a noble thing - I did it a long time ago and am a better person for it.

[goclark]

13. Good for you jhrobbins and welcome to DU!

[Kagemusha]

21. Volunteering in programs for charity is a noble thing.

Being compelled by your government to participate in programs as an alternative to participating in the brutal occupation of a foreign nation where bad people are trying to kill you on a daily basis, is a considerably less noble and less friendly endeavor.

[jhrobbins]

26. It's a shame that people are too lazy or jaded or smug...

to want to help others and in so dong wind up helping themselves more than they ever could have anticipated. I don't want to legislate charity, but it could be done by incentivizing the process - sort of like the way my parents got me to play piano. It needs to be done and it would be what this country needs - Americans have become, with exceptions, the most selfish creatures on this planet - liberals and conservatives alike. We need to get off our collective asses and make a difference. If the religious conservative spent half the energy demonizing gays and abortion clinics and welfare recipients, they could really accomplish a great deal.

[Kagemusha]

31. I'm fine with encouraging more charity, but...

Rangel's draft IS legislating charity, as well as indentured servitude. I can understand people sneering at "lazy kids" and wanting to force them to work for society but, nonetheless, I see very little value in it. Indentured servitude via the draft will mean a cheap labor force that is quite large for which tasks shall be found, or made, no matter how wasteful or ill-advised. Not to mention available manpower enabling America to go find new dragons to slay.

[MichiganVote]

15. So you want a dialogue....let's have one

You say,

"It (Rangels comments and proposal) made the "war on Iraq" and all of the military aspirations of the Bush administration and the neocons very personal didn't it? "

---Apprantly people have laready made up their minds on that, they voted the Dem's in prior to the latest Rangel draft for a dialogue. Somehow, someway, people have been talking. Why assume that Americans en masse are unthinking or uncaring about Iraq, its natives or our soldiers when through a mid term vote they have spoken?

"It put your ass on the line and deprived you of any voice in the decision didn't it?"

---Not quite. The "asses" you are referring to are voters and they voted.

"Well welcome to my high school years and it was only because the draft ended a year after I was eligible to be shipped off to Vietnam that the fear of being drafted into an illegal, unjust war ended then."

---How often these 'draft' debates transition to VietNam. I don't know how long ago that is for you but it seems to me that you were not the only one who was deprived of choice. Mothers, father, sisters, friends.....a whole population was deprived of choice during Nam'. Yes, something of the same is going on now. During Nam' the draft lasted 8 years and 50,000 people were killed. Since you remember your own fear of the draft, you can understand how a population of Americans recall and feel the same. Do you really think that the Democrats should represent a feeling of fear to our young voters? Especially after a slogan during the 2004 election that signified hope?

There are a handfull of politicans with sons or daughters ripe for enlistment or the draft. There are millions of families who voted Dem. this year and they didn't vote for a dialogue or a draft. They voted for change. As much as I personally hated Nam', and I did, I hate this war more. I want change. I already know they are hypocrites. I already know they are busting the treasury. I already know they are incompetent. I already know politicians are masters of dialogue and of little else. I want change. I want action, not talk.

[XOKCowboy]

32. The only thing I can say is this is a call to action

It's Rangel's call to action. Call for dialogue but support the party and the movement. I've just seen too many people calling to abandon the movement just because of this. This works into their hands and perpetuates the stereotype of Dems and Liberals.

[MichiganVote]

42. XO, I could really care less about the subtitles of this movie;

Dem's, Repub's, liberals, extremists etc. Rangel can call to action all he wants but in the real world we have corporations that are driving our domestic policy, our foreign policy, our fiscal policy and our law making policies. Do these corporate entities care about a draft for a dialogue? Hell no. All they care about is their profit line. That's it. You cannot shame them, you cannot moralize the situation and you can't always legalize the scenario. These are inhuman entities, these corporations.

I suppose we're all looking for the bell weather that signifies that productive action has begun. And that's good. What's bad is when we confuse voters. We can't do that. We just can't do that.

End the dialogue and we'll end the war. Enough talk, let's move.

On edit: I'm glad you made it past Nam'.

[Beelzebud]

29. People already are on board. The election results proved it. No need for MORE scare tactics.

[spoony]

48. I agree

The OP and others seem to think that "the outrage is the point." No, it isn't, because for a large majority of Americans it's already there. So why threaten all of us to make a point to a limited group of people too dumb to have turned against this war by now?!

[Catch22Dem]

33. I can't get over the DUers who were surprised by this

We DU'd this thing to DEATH two years ago. I'm actually surprised that so many are surprised.

[XOKCowboy]

37. I know..

The context was different when we were a hopeless minority. I guess the difference is that now we're somewhat empowered by the midterms. I actually think that it's cool that people now think that we could actually get something like this passed.

[Kagemusha]

38. Two years ago Tom DeLay made anything Rangel proposed irrelevant

Well, we don't have Tom DeLay to kick around anymore, or save us from Rangel's proposals. We're not surprised. We're horrified at the message this sends to the public, so soon after victory at the polls. There's such a thing as demonstrating responsibility. And just look at us - the defenders of Rangel are saying, don't worry, he's just mendacious, nothing to worry about. Great message, that!

[wuushew]

36. Drafting a bill you have no intention voting on is a waste of time

Did Rangel finish all his other homework first before wasting staff time, ink and paper on a bill that will under no circumstances will pass?


Congress needs to repeal the War Powers Act. That is the key to destroying the Bush doctrine.