"anti-war" democrat rangel re-introduces bill to reinstate the draft

DPrival78

it never really got any support when he introduced it in the past, but for some reason, he just won't give up.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--rangel-iraq-draft0111jan11,0,7877055.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork


January 11, 2007, 6:27 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Rep. Charles Rangel, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war, on Thursday called for a new military draft, saying everyone between 18 and 42 should be asked to share the burden of wartime responsibilities.

The Harlem Democrat has offered the bill before, but this is the first time he has done so as a member of the new Democratic majority in Congress.

"I'm serious about the draft because I do believe in wartime if someone has to serve it should be everyone has to be in a position to be liable to serve," said Rangel, who has long argued the country's minorities and lower class are doing a disproportionate share of the fighting in the all-volunteer U.S. military.

As a young man, Rangel enlisted in the Army in the late 1940s and was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds suffered in the Korean War.

Democratic leadership has shown no interest in bringing the bill to a vote, despite its vocal objections to the 21,500-troop increase announced Wednesday night by President Bush. Even Rangel once voted against the bill.

The Bush administration has repeatedly insisted there will be no military draft.

Rangel, chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways & Means Committee, said he was "so pained" by the president's remarks about the troops, "some of whom may lose their lives or their limbs and not have the slightest clue as to what the president of the United States was talking about."

"How many people are going to die," he said, "before they put out the light and say, 'Yes we made mistakes, we continue to make mistakes and the American people just won't tolerate any more mistakes at the expense of American lives and limbs and close to half a trillion dollars?"'

farfromglorified

Yeah, cause God knows the draft prevents pointless wars :rolleyes:

Forced conscription is the most appalling behavior a state may commit, short of mass murder. I wonder what Rep. Rangel would say if one of his counterparts proposed a race-blind reinstatement of state-sanctioned slavery?

RockinInCanada

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah, cause God knows the draft prevents pointless wars :rolleyes:

Forced conscription is the most appalling behavior a state may commit, short of mass murder. I wonder what Rep. Rangel would say if one of his counterparts proposed a race-blind reinstatement of state-sanctioned slavery?

I agree forced consription is a crime IMHO...forcing people to fight...give me a break.....

farfromglorified

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I agree forced consription is a crime IMHO...forcing people to fight...give me a break.....

It's quite disheartening to me that Rangel continues to operate in such a position of power, despite his continued calls for this draft. I do not understand why anyone would support a man who declares a right to force you to fight, regardless of your discretion.

He should be ashamed of himself. Among all the corrupt mindsets in Washington, his is the most evil.

blackredyellow

Ok Charlie, we get the point that you've been trying to make... you know it doesn't have the slightest chance of even being voted on, much less passed, so let it go already.

LikeAnOcean

farfromglorified wrote:

It's quite disheartening to me that Rangel continues to operate in such a position of power, despite his continued calls for this draft. I do not understand why anyone would support a man who declares a right to force you to fight, regardless of your discretion.

He should be ashamed of himself. Among all the corrupt mindsets in Washington, his is the most evil.

I'm pretty sure his point is that if people are forced to fight, we will be much more careful about the wars we pick. Had the draft been the law, we would have never gone into Iraq for example.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

It's quite disheartening to me that Rangel continues to operate in such a position of power, despite his continued calls for this draft. I do not understand why anyone would support a man who declares a right to force you to fight, regardless of your discretion.

He should be ashamed of himself. Among all the corrupt mindsets in Washington, his is the most evil.

i dont think he suports the draft. this has been discussed ad nauseum, someone reads about it and posts it here once every few months. he's been doing this for years. he knows it wont pass and he doesn't want it to. he's just trying to make a point. namely, how many people would think a given war is worth fighting if they might be the ones called to fight it. it's easy to say X war is just and necessary if your ass isn't on the line. whether or not this is an effective method is debatable.

farfromglorified

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I'm pretty sure his point is that if people are forced to fight, we will be much more careful about the wars we pick.

That is his point. Perhaps he forgot about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Had the draft been the law, we would have never gone into Iraq for example.

That's ridiculous logic. The Vietnam War was started during the draft era, and it was started with similar corrupt principles.

Warmaking is as subject to the laws of economics as anything else. When you give a greater supply of something to the war machine, the costs of warmaking go down, not up.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think he suports the draft. this has been discussed ad nauseum, someone reads about it and posts it here once every few months. he's been doing this for years. he knows it wont pass and he doesn't want it to. he's just trying to make a point. namely, how many people would think a given war is worth fighting if they might be the ones called to fight it. it's easy to say X war is just and necessary if your ass isn't on the line. whether or not this is an effective method is debatable.

Then perhaps he should propose a law that states that any member of congress who votes for a war enlists himself into the front lines.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Then perhaps he should propose a law that states that any member of congress who votes for a war enlists himself into the front lines.

that would be fucking awesome

1970RR

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think he suports the draft. this has been discussed ad nauseum, someone reads about it and posts it here once every few months. he's been doing this for years. he knows it wont pass and he doesn't want it to. he's just trying to make a point. namely, how many people would think a given war is worth fighting if they might be the ones called to fight it. it's easy to say X war is just and necessary if your ass isn't on the line. whether or not this is an effective method is debatable.

This is an even worse scenario. Too offer legislation you do not even believe in just to make a point is completely irresponsible.
I have no problem with his being against the war and wanting it to end, but to push legislation that could actually make it into law is not the way to do it.

What would his response be if somehow this managed to pass??

blackredyellow

1970RR wrote:

What would his response be if somehow this managed to pass??

That question is moot because it will never pass. It would be like a congressman offering a bill that all lawmakers are limited to one term.

DPrival78

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I'm pretty sure his point is that if people are forced to fight, we will be much more careful about the wars we pick. Had the draft been the law, we would have never gone into Iraq for example.

that reasoning of his is horseshit. the people who pick the wars to fight aren't the people who fight them. nor are their kids the ones who fight them. they couldn't care less about who's going to die in their wars, whether there's a draft or not.

this is just another example of how phony the democrats are. a lot of people got excited when they took the senate, thinking that they were actually going to change things - particularly regarding the war. yet, they're won't do anything to bring troops home, they'll let bush have his escalation, and this idiot wants a draft so we can enough targets to send to iraq, iran, syria, and where ever the hell else. there is no opposition party in washington.

hippiemom

DPrival78 wrote:

that reasoning of his is horseshit. the people who pick the wars to fight aren't the people who fight them. nor are their kids the ones who fight them. they couldn't care less about who's going to die in their wars, whether there's a draft or not.

The people who vote for congress DO fight the wars. So do their kids. I wonder how many of the armchair warriors would have voted for the pro-war representatives if there was any danger that they or their children would be dragged off to fight? My guess is the number would have been a good bit lower.

That said, I think this is a pretty silly tactic and he should knock it off already.

1970RR

blackredyellow wrote:

That question is moot because it will never pass. It would be like a congressman offering a bill that all lawmakers are limited to one term.

I would at least hope that any legislation being proposed is at minimum supported by the very person pushing it, as well as their constituents. Thats sort of the reason they are sent to Washington in the first place. The question of its viability is not the real issue.

DPrival78

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think he suports the draft. this has been discussed ad nauseum, someone reads about it and posts it here once every few months. he's been doing this for years. he knows it wont pass and he doesn't want it to. he's just trying to make a point. namely, how many people would think a given war is worth fighting if they might be the ones called to fight it. it's easy to say X war is just and necessary if your ass isn't on the line. whether or not this is an effective method is debatable.

in todays press release, he makes no mention of the deterrent effect. he seems to be concerned with a. having enough troops to fight multiple wars, b. having everyone in the country "share the burden" of these wars.

read the whole thing here:
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html

here's a snippet:
My bill requires that, during wartime, all legal residents of the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 42 would be subject to a military draft, with the number determined by the President. No deferments would be allowed beyond the completion of high school, up to age 20, except for conscientious objectors or those with health problems. A permanent provision of the bill mandates that those not needed by the military be required to perform two years of civilian service in our sea and airports, schools, hospitals, and other facilities.

I don't see how anyone who supports the War in Iraq would not support reinstatement of the draft.

The President announced last night his intention to send an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Iraq. The military is at the breaking point with more than 50 percent of our combat troops already deployed in Iraq. The question is: where will the additional troops--including those that may follow if the war is escalated further--come from?


no talk of trying to block this or further escalations.. just concerns of having enough warm bodies to send over there, to come back cold.

yield2me

even if by some sort of miracle this bill was voted on and passed and they tried to reinstate the draft, nobody would go. It would be a fiasco, there wouldn't be enough jail cells to hold all the people that would say no to this. I know I sure as hell wouldn't go.

qtegirl

But don't you think that the anti-war movement right now would be a lot stronger if a lot more different people would've had to fight, instead of the same people for 2-3 tours?

And, with the majority of Americans opposing the war and favoring withdrawal, we wouldn't even the thinking about a "surge" (escalation) that would endanger even more people.

That's what I think the draft would do, anyway.

yield2me

qtegirl wrote:

But don't you think that the anti-war movement right now would be a lot stronger if a lot more different people would've had to fight, instead of the same people for 2-3 tours?

And, with the majority of Americans opposing the war and favoring withdrawal, we wouldn't even the thinking about a "surge" (escalation) that would endanger even more people.

That's what I think the draft would do, anyway.

Like I said before...good luck getting people to go. I'd bet 80% of the people drafted would say no

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

But don't you think that the anti-war movement right now would be a lot stronger if a lot more different people would've had to fight, instead of the same people for 2-3 tours?

Hehe....I don't know how much credibily I'd give an anti-war movement that already gave the government the power to simply draft them into a war.

Furthermore, I don't know how much "stronger" they'd be if half of them were dead in another country.

And, with the majority of Americans opposing the war and favoring withdrawal, we wouldn't even the thinking about a "surge" (escalation) that would endanger even more people.

Really? Two-thirds already oppose this "surge", but they're not likely to stop it.

That's what I think the draft would do, anyway.

The draft would saction the state's right to grab you off the street, put a gun in your hand, and force you to kill people or be killed. That's what the draft would do.

DPrival78

farfromglorified wrote:

The draft would saction the state's right to grab you off the street, put a gun in your hand, and force you to kill people or be killed.

which i believe is one of the hallmarks of democracy