Isn't threatening people's kids with a draft to 'wake them up' a form of terrorism?

[Zhade]

Put aside that a majority of Americans now oppose the war and DON'T need to be woken up - if one argues that the minority who does support it should have their kids (who didn't choose their parents, btw) threatened with a draft to bring home the reality of the war, isn't that terrorizing them into seeing things our way?

Now yes, we're right on the war, we in the majority who oppose it. Some of us have been right about it all along. But should the children of those who are wrong pay the price for their parents' folly and blindness?

I find the suggestion that kids my age should pay the price for their parents' disconnection from reality to be repugnant. Unethical. Immoral.

And wrong.

[Jim Sagle]

1. The only people being terrorized by Rangel are the Dem leadership

who hope like hell that his loony idea won't be mistaken for a mainstream Dem position.

[Kagemusha]

2. It's a legal form of political argument so technically, no.

You toss a lot of other adjectives in your 3rd and 4th paragraphs and I think they suit the situation much better.

[Zhade]

5. Okay, good point on the legality.

That's true.

So is it a form of, what, "sins of the father"? Making the kids pay the price for something they didn't do still seems like terrorizing to me - we're talking about a draft wherein kids WILL die for their parents' stupidity.

(I'm aiming this at those who, wrongly, think that a majority of Americans don't already oppose the war - which they have all along, since before we invaded without UN approval - and should be woken up when they're already with us.)

[Serenades]

3. hmmmm

I think it's more of coercing people to think . . .

[Kagemusha]

7. Yes, but is coercing people to think moral?

I think it's a more complicated question than the draft debate by itself can handle but, I'm not convinced that it's good to use the lives of Americans and that of their children and fathers and mothers as game tokens to make them think.

[Zhade]

10. That's my question, too.

Is it right to threaten kids with potential death in Iraq just to force their parents to face reality?

Why punish the kids? They aren't to blame for their parents' support of the war.

[Serenades]

11. the way i see it

Most people won't consider a situation unless they are primarily implicated in it. In my opinion, most people are unable or unwanting to empathize or think about things that don't concern them directly unless the situation hits home. No one cares about stem cell research until their paralyzed in some accident or whatever. No one believes in a woman's right to chose unless they've been raped or their life is on the line, etc. That is all I was trying to say.

[Zhade]

14. Don't say "no one"; that's untrue.

Clearly, most of us here DO support those things, even without being paralyzed or raped.

And again - should we punish, or threaten to punish, 17-year-olds who have no political power to prove a point to their parents?

[Serenades]

27. kjkjfgd

i guess i am making general statements. i don't mean "no one" as 0% of the earth. but most americans just don't think about these things unless is confronts them. that's why there isn't real outrage about the war. most people have no stakes in it. most look at the tv and say, "oh, i guess that stuff's too bad. did the cowboys win? what's gonna happen on The Bold & the Beautiful."

and i think it is completely appropriate to threaten to bring back the draft because people will become more politcally active if they have a stake or the potential of having one in the war. if we are seriously in WWIII, this is the grandest fight of the 21st century, and if we are really trying to conquer terrorism across the globe then yes these things should be takled about. everyone in this country should be sacrificing time, money, energy, and loved ones.

you and i know that this is not WWIII but merely a geopolitical move for power but we must force the president to put his money where his mouth is. i don't want a draft but i think rangel's message is hard to turn your back on.

i'm not sure if i am making sense or not . . .

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Is arson a good way to get people to think about homeowners insurance?

Don't minimize the point - using the threat of a draft for the purposes of raising consciousness is analagous to holding a gun to the heads of their children.

It's wrong and politically ignorant.

[Zhade]

42. That's my thought too.

NT!

[valerief]

4. All middle aged Americans are at fault? Methinks you don't

know who all the victims are.

[Zhade]

What? Where did I say that?

Please point it out, because I certainly didn't intend to say anything CLOSE to that.

[valerief]

22. I'm assuming the parents of all the kids of draft age are middle aged.

<<I find the suggestion that kids my age should pay the price for their parents' disconnection from reality to be repugnant. Unethical. Immoral.>>

[Zhade]

24. I'm of course talking about the kids of war supporters.

Apologies for not being clearer.

[valerief]

33. Oh, I thought since a draft would affect the children of war supporters

and anti-war protesters, you were stating all parents were all at fault. Then again, they were the ones who allowed Raygun to be s/elected. Twice.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. It's not like we're bombing them...

we're just trying to make them think about being in someone else's shoes. :shrug:

[Zhade]

9. Not those who actually support a draft.

(And during a time when we're engaged in an illegal war at that.)

Some DUers argue that the American people need a draft, or a discussion of it, to 'wake up' - even though a majority already opposes the war.

In their case, supporting a draft WILL end up with kids being bombed in Iraq, if their willingness to gamble with kids' lives holds sway (thankfully it doesn't look remotely possible, but one must remain vigilant).

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. "doesn't look remotely possible" EXACTLY

but it does foster discussion of the issue.

[Zhade]

23. If it were likely, would my argument be stronger?

Look, I'm just tossing it out there - I fully admit I could be wrong in my conclusions.

But as to punishing kids for their parents' actions, I'm pretty sure I'm NOT wrong on that being unethical.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. You aren't wrong

punishing kids for their parents' actions WOULD be wrong, but Rangel isn't going for that. He's just trying to jump-start the discussion.

[Mr_Spock]

8. It is a wake up call

not a threat.

Thou hast missed the point completely.

[Zhade]

12. 40% of DUers actually support the draft as something that should happen.

I got the point, thanks - I just consider it unethically made.

[Mr_Spock]

18. I don't agree with those who support the draft

I do think a peacetime "civil service" contract of say 1 year wouldn't hurt in giving our kids a more rounded view of the world. One of the options would be the military, but there would be many other choices for service that could involve many different aspects of supporting the civil infrastructure of the country. Only those who chose the military option would be at risk in an overseas war, though some may be working in homeland security type positions back at home if there were ever an attack here. I think a lot more people would support this type of civil service.

[Zhade]

25. I'm not opposed to discussing the civil service idea.

I think we need a new public works deal, actually.

[PurpleChez]

30. Exactly! Thank you!

Rangel (I know I always misspell his name...) is simply pointing out that repuke war fetishists will not put their money where their mouths are when it comes to Iraq. Absolutely nothing immoral about it. Same theme as this week's Doonesbury.

As for the contention (in another post) that it's wrong to use such a tactic as Mr Rangel's to make someone think about an issue... WHAT. THE. HELL??? With that line of thinking Denny Hastert would now be preparing for another term as House Speaker. For a generation, Dems have been screwed by their very well-intentioned desire to take the high road in each and every confrontation. But sometimes you just have to piss someone off.

[CarbonDate]

13. I think "waking people up" is a poor way to put it.

Either a war is so important that it demands a shared sacrfice from all Americans or it isn't. If it is, then there should be a draft. If it isn't, then we shouldn't engage in it.

The volunteer military works well for short-term, contingency-based military operations (see Gulf War I, the Balkans conflict) or as a deterent against aggression on our nation. For a "long, hard slog" like the one we have right now, the volunteer military begins to crumble, as it is right now.

The nation faces a choice: bring out troops home or send conscripts. We cannot continue the way we have been. It's just impossible. We cannot stay the course. We don't have the manning to do it.

This is a real problem and we need to face it realistically. The choice is not between continuing as we have been and bringing the troops home. Continuing as we have been is no longer an option. I cannot emphasize that enough. We either pull out of Iraq or send conscripts.

An honest discussion about our options at this point is absolutely essential. We cannot let the Bush administration continue with their garbage about staying the course.

Make politicians defend their decision to send conscripts, because that is what it will take to continue our Iraq occupation.

Of course I oppose the Iraq occupation. I always have. But it's also true that people here are not nearly as upset about the daily casualties as they are about the thought that they or theirs might be among them in the future.

A vote for continued occupation is a vote for a draft.

Edited for spelling.

[Zhade]

16. A majority of Americans oppose the war and want the troops home.

Haven't we already kind of decided?

[CarbonDate]

29. Great! So we can go home tomorrow then?

Or is there maybe, you know, more to it than that?

A lot of these people who oppose the war on principle can still "live with" it, right? Or else they'd be in the streets or banging on their congress-critters' doors regularly to end it, right? Kind of like they would be if they understood the implications of just "living with it"?

Should we just shut up about the draft and pretend that we don't need more manning to continue the Iraq occupation? Should we just hire more Blackwater mercs? Recruit more skinheads and gang-bangers who want to train in urban warfare so they can use their newly acquired skills back in the states? And when we run out of those, what then? Empty out our prisons of violent criminals?

I'm opposed to the Iraq occupation, but my opinion is worth about a bucket of horse piss. A crowd of upset moms saying, "You're not sending MY kid", on the other hand, has a lot more power.

That's actually the optimistic outlook. The pessimistic outlook is that we'll have a draft and no one will care, which isn't entirely unrealistic based on how people have reacted to the Iraq occupation.

But if lay people out there can "live with" sending our National Guard troops on repeating one year tours in that hell hole, if they can "live with" soldiers coming home with their heads caved in, missing limbs, missing faces, or just plain dead, then I guess as a member of the military myself, I can "live with" sending some people over there against their will so some of my brothers and sisters in arms who've been "stop-lossed" well past their term of service can get a friggin' break. Cold? Uncaring? "I got mine"-ish? Welcome to my world.

[Horse with no Name]

15. I don't view it as a threat

I think it is a reasonable topic that needs to be discussed. You can't spend money you don't have and you can't send soldiers that you don't have to a war.
Take a married couple for instance.One continually spent money they didn't have, racking up debt that the other was legally responsible for, although they really didn't have anything to do with the purchases.
Is it unreasonable for the non-spending partner to sit down and tell the spending partner that they are going to have to get another job to pay the bills because they wouldn't have enough money...or do you think it is the spending partner's responsibility to realize they are in trouble and leave it to them to fix their own mess?

[Zensea]

17. No and thinking so indicates youthfulness

If you think that threatening kids with a draft is a form of terrorism I suspect you have been living a very soft privileged life and it indicates to me that you do need a wake up call.
I consider it an insult to those who deal with real terrorism daily in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Seems to me there is a distinct lack of perspective in your question.

I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War so I'm no hawk or militarist either.

[Zhade]

19. You don't know how old I am; you'd be surprised.

I do think that threatening kids with a draft to 'wake up' their parents - which IS what some here are arguing for - is coercive and unethical.

I'll concede that 'a form of terrorism' may be a bit strong.

(As for my 'soft life', you don't EVEN know what hell I've been through and what I've had to do to survive, so please don't assume you do.)

EDIT: I see I tipped my hand about my age in the OP, LOL! Not as wily as I thought. :silly:

[Zensea]

31. I find the suggestion that kids my age

Your words in your original post.
Kids my age.
Whether you were telling the truth or not, I don't know of course.
The reason I said I "suspect" is because you're right, I don't know what you've been through.
I didn't say I knew, did I?
I'm not just parsing words and equivocating, I was intentionally very careful about the words I chose.
Using the word "youthfulness" was another such choice since it does not necessarily connect to any particular chronological age.

Of course a draft is coercive. I'm no fan of the draft and am very ambivalent about it, particularly since I was a conscientious objector.
That is, I don't believe there should be a draft from a philosophical standpoint but I do believe that once the draft ended it created a set of circumstances in which a whole generation was able to evade responsibility. Thus my ambivalence. I think a draft tends to focus people's attention regarding their beliefs and the consequences of their government's actions.
Hmmm, I guess that means that logically I would advocate a draft that included everyone born after 1956 since anybody younger than 49 never had to face a draft.:)

[CarbonDate]

35. "younger than 49...."

Hell, that's two generations.

[enki23]

21. only if you stretch the definition of "terrorism" so far as to be essentially meaningless

[Zhade]

26. Coercion by threat of your kid's death isn't kind of terrorizing?

Legally, you're right, it's not terrorism.

Ethically, I don't know.

[bigriver]

32. It's not terrorism. It's just dumb geezers being bitter.

Or young people who don't know better

[Nevernose]

34. A draft is also the only realistic option for staying in Iraq.

We can't afford to stay there, otherwise. A million combat troops there at any given moment, plus some indiscriminate carpet bombings of civilian areas, and we'd clean up pretty damned quick. Wars aren't won with hearts and minds, they're won by crushing the spirit of the entire enemy populace. It takes sacrifice and brutality, and if we're not committed to those two things, then we shouldn't be going to war.

I really don't believe that Rangel is "threating" anybody, he's just pointing out the truth: if we want to "win" in Iraq, we have to be willing to go all the way. And we're not, so we should just count our blessings, declare victory, take our kids home, and stop killing theirs.

[Spangle]

36. No, it's a reality check

A lot of people don't care how much things cost, if they don't have to pay the bill. The pro-choice movement made a point when they say that MEN who don't generally have to live with the 'chices', but walk away. shouldn't be the ones deciding if women shouldn't have the choice at all. Same thing with people complaining about our elected officials, but don't vote. Those that don't vote, should shut up. My view is, they might not have 'voted' for the winner, but they sure didnt' vote against them. If they didn't vote against them, they they are 'for' him/her.

Arm chair quarterbacks, when it comes to war, really don't have anything to loose. And I do mean 'arm chair'. It's a power issue. America the Great. Mighty War machine. All something to talk about, how 'big' we are. But they don't really having anything at 'stake' in the game to make them realisticly think about what is going on. They don't have any reason to think about anything besides the 'game' of how great we are. "They" don't have to pay the price in any sort of way.

These same people will be the first to scream if their children, grand-children, etc.. was required to join the military. The college bound, ment to be someone to brag about. Not grunts in ditches.

I think it would be more fair if those such persons had a little bit more realistic view of the world. If they too had a real stake in the game.

[CarbonDate]

37. Look, let me be clear on this:

1) I don't favor drafting people to send them to Iraq.
2) I favor ending the Iraq occupation as soon as possible.

That said, people need to get off their fucking asses and do whatever they can to end the occupation (my options are limited, given who my employer is), or there will be a draft, whether we like it or not. This is not a threat. This is a warning. People need to heed it.

[dmosh42]

39. Good reply!

These actions in Iraq have been basically a video game to many people who never did any service in the US gov't. As a result, I think Bushco have been getting a free ride for years. Think of it this way. We have 140,000+ troops in Iraq now. We had over 400,000 in Vietnam for years, and still had to leave in a hurry!

[bananas]

38. If McCain can talk about 20,000 more troops without being tarred and feathered

then people haven't woken up enough.

[Zhade]

43. This, unfortunately, IS a good point.

NT!

[LWolf]

40. I don't know if it's terrorism.

It is unethical, imo. Repugnant. Immoral. All those things.

We keep being told that there "won't really be a draft." I say watch out; introducing it into the conversation to make a point desensitizes people to the idea, imo. I also notice that there are plenty of Democrats, right here on DU, who support, not just the talk of draft, but the reality of a draft, if their posts are to be believed.

I think desensitizing people to the idea of a draft is more dangerous than whatever benefit people think they will get by using a draft to make a point. The costs far outweigh the benefits in this case.

I hope that people your age will remember this, and hold firm throughout your lifetime to your convictions. If not now, because it's "just making a point," it could be your kids who face a real draft, after a few decades of desensitization.

[Zhade]

44. My son is eight next month.

Believe me, I'll never forget how I feel about this!

[salin]

47. here is the deal.... bushco and other 'leaders' can NOT just

keep talking about future "missions" and invasions or "attacks" (oh - they say plans in Iran aren't for an occupation... just a 'strategic attack') - without the country screaming... WHERE DO WE GET THE MANPOWER TO FIGHT/ENGAGE in such efforts. This is an administration that frighteningly acts without regards to reality (as in reality we do not have an endless supply of servicemen and servicewomen to carry out their mad missions).

Frankly, this is the discussion we should have had before the Iraq invasion. Was it important enough to each of us in the country - that like in WWII we were willing to go ourselves or have family members go fight (my father left college to enlist). If not, than it isn't an endeavor the pres should send military to. I would bet that many would have answered "yes" per Afghanistan and "no" to Iraq.

Unless the powersthatbe propose to vastly increase the size of the number of troops in Iraq (to which that question: HOW DO WE MAN IT? then has to be asked) - I don't think draft talk makes sense. BUT if Bushco - or any other future president - starts sounding the war drums... and starts propagandizing us for a year THEN THE QUESTION and DEBATE has to happen. And the citizens parents, young people, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc HAVE to be a part of that discussion. There may be situations in the future that the people would agree that we must - as a nation - go to war. But that should only be the case when the cause is so great that there is near universal agreement to the cause and to support the cause - and willingness to fight for the cause. in no way was Iraq ever viewed that way. Had the discussion happened before 'electing' to give the pres the power to invade... it never would have happened.

[KingFlorez]

45. No it is not

A reality check is what these people need and this Sayis the perfect way to do it. Trying to make people think is not Unethical or immoral.

[EdwardM]

46. Some people believe you have to make a situation worse to fix it.

I see no difference between this draft resolution and John McCain trying to add 100,000 more troops. Both would lead to the same thing. Escalation.

[bobbolink]

48. Absolutely. Dems are dangerous, and need to be stopped.

:eyes:

Hyperbole much?

[porphyrian]

49. I'm not sure if it's terrorism, but it certainly isn't a good thing.

Coercion through fear is too widely accepted in our society. Parents do it, teachers do it, religions do it, certainly law enforcement does it, and few people ever seem to question it at all. What are the long term effects of using fear to manipulate the behaviors of others? I'm sure we won't have to look far for that answer.

There is no justice in punishing those who are not responsible for a crime.

[B Calm]

50. It's past time for college age kids to mass protest this war! Back

when the Vietnam War and the draft was in full swing there was mass protests! Does it take a draft to wake people up?