Cagey Rangel raises spectre of draft
Charlie Rangel, D-NY has long advocated a return to a military draft, citing the fact that it's largely minorities and kids from economically strapped households and regions of the country who do the fighting and dying for the elite.
He's renewed his intention to call for a return to a draft.
I think it's not only a good idea, but good politics, forcing as it does, the armchair chickenhawk warriors to put up or shut up. The blood of their kids and relatives is just as good as some kid from the south side of Chicago.
It seems obvious that if the flesh and blood of the very elite who cheerlead this utterly pointless and ill-considered war were forced to put their asses in harm's way, they'd not be so quick to either start wars of choice nor to support them.
Dems have already responded that they'll not support this effort, so it's a moot point, as Rangel no doubt realized, but as a way of making a point, I think it's worthwhile.
What do you think?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/20/2006
19 comments
19 Comments:
I absolutely agree!
I don't think that anyone can doubt that part of the reason our leaders have been so reckless in commiting our armed forces to war is that none of their own children or the children of any of their friends are in the military and would be at risk. It would be interesting to see how eager the neocons would be for preemptive war if their own children would be among the first to die in any wars they start.
It is time these chicken hawks and yellow elephants are forced to assume some of the shared sacrifice they have been so eagerly urging onto others.
I turned on CNN this evening and they were giving Charley Rangel the foot-in-the-mouth award for his proposal but they could not explain why it was such a bad idea. They just asserted it was without any argument or proof.
What does this have to do with nature pictures?
If you don't get with the program nobody is going to come here and comment anymore.
Go outside and take a picture of bat! Or how about a cricket? Do you think you could get a photo of a cricket? Do ya? That would drive new commentors to our blog and help save it from mere obscurity.
All you National politcal chatter has driven off loyal commentors. It's time for nautre and more Jacobs stories. Nothing else will bring our blog back from the dead!
What u use to do was important, now all you do is annoying stuff!
This is not what I expect from someone of your caliber!
You can do better!!!!!!!!
Sheesh, I have faith that you'll continue to comment several times a day and that hundreds of people will visit the site. Some things never change.
And thanks to Dave and diehard for their comments.
Dems should hold hearings on serious issues.
1. Stop-loss. What power should the President have? At what point can the individual say, "I fulfilled my end of the contract. I quit"?
2. Recruitment. Want to put military brass on the defensive? Hold hearings on military recruitment.
3. Pass a bill forbidding conscription under Amendment XII, which bans "involuntary servitude".
A draft is a very worthwhile point from two perspectives:
-the overwhelming majority of Americans have not sacrificed anything but time at airport screenings in this war. Only those actually fighting the war have sacrificed, which makes the chest thumping of neocons even that much more disgusting.
-if we're so determined to "win" (whatever that means), then we should do apply overwhelming force. We can't do that with our current force structure (not without dropping our guard completely in more critical areas).
I hear what you're saying here dope, but I have to disagree slightly.
While it is possible that some "elite" children would get drafted, it's highly likely that they would find a way out of it before actually going to war(sound familiar Mr Prez?). I don't think that sending the elite children to war would even factor into a president's decision.
What it would do, however, is increase public outcry for such scenarios. Which might, in turn, force the government to do the right thing.
I still have to say though, that the theory behind forced military activity is unjust. I am just out of the draft range (age-wise) but had they called me 2 years ago and told me to go to Iraq I would have told them to p*ss off.
There are certain things worth fighting for, perhaps Afghanistan and Bin Laden. There are certain things that are not, like Iraq, and WMD's...
I'm old enough to remember the draft and the dreaded annual lottery of the late 60's and early 70's. Rich kids got deferments for college or non-com assignments; kids with politically connected parents got deferments, non-com assignments or were allowed into the National Guard; and for the most part, with the rare "John Kerry" rich kid exception, it was the poor and middle class kids that got sent into combat.
Leave it to you IHG, to actually try to blame your lack of military service on those who opposed the war.
Sickening.
How about blaming it on yourself and the fact that you didn't want to serve?
I hope this issue of the draft will get more traction in January. In an effert to call more attention to the war.
IHG, how old are you now? If the military raised the max enlistment age would you join?
If not, shut your pie hole.
IHG, you believed liberalism when it suited your interests. Now you believe conservatism when it suits your interests. I'm seeing a pattern.
If the Dems agree to the draft then there is a greater possibility of sending more troops to Iraq and Afghansistan AND starting a war with Iran.
Saddam built ( with our help) the largest fighting machine in the Middle East. When you feel powerful you have to use your power or yo will have a restless bunch of generals who decide that a coup is necessary. The generals need to prove that their troops are battlegound ready and so they need a war. Besides, all the armament manufacturers need to have their new weapons battle tested. Just as we had to user the Patriots and guided missiles. Even if we had to take down a civilian Iranian plane ( if you recall 250 died).
So even though I agree with Rangel that some of the warhawks may think twice after a draft is instituted, it will have the the generals salivating. Colin was happy to take out Granada and Panama ( 40,000 buried in mass trenches). He becomes so popular that some people thought he would be a great President.
Enough already! Too many dead, too much devastation, too much depression, too much disabled veterans.
We are a nation of fighters and cheerleaders, and so nothing will change. Fasten your seat belts for the "big one" as the Foxx character used to say.
Good lord Mowen, what do you expect when you say something like that?
You're truly blessed that you lost that primary, you know that? Because you'd be on the front page every other day and people would NOT be nice to you. You seem to have a real way with words, and when people get a glimpse at the way you think, I don't think they'd be pleased or impressed.
You try to blame your not serving during the Vietnam era on the hippies or whoever you imagine forced you not to enlist? Blaming the what? "Prevailing mood" of the country or something?
That's absolutely outrageous and really shines a light into your character.
Did some hippies kidnap you and brainwash you or something?
Or were you simply against the war? Or were you rationally more concerned with saving your ass and not risking getting it blown off in some steaming jungle half way around the world?
But don't try to suggest that you didn't go because some people "denigrated military service" to the point where you didn't go.
And then you have the nerve to call "shame" on them for what? Saving your ass?
That's truly outrageous.
And now, looky here, you're a gung-ho armchair general cheerleading the boys as they get slaughtered in Iraq. Imagine that.
How are we supposed to get past that whopper??
I mean, the only excuse for not serving that's more of a stretch than yours is perhaps Tom Delay's, who inferred that he would have joined, but there were so many minorities signing up that there wasn't room for him.
But your's is right up there.
I think other commenters have laid out the case for Rangel's call for a draft very well. Don't know exactly what more you want.
Good lord Mowen, what do you expect when you say something like that?
You're truly blessed that you lost that primary, you know that? Because you'd be on the front page every other day and people would NOT be nice to you. You seem to have a real way with words, and when people get a glimpse at the way you think, I don't think they'd be pleased or impressed.
You try to blame your not serving during the Vietnam era on the hippies or whoever you imagine forced you not to enlist? Blaming the what? "Prevailing mood" of the country or something?
That's absolutely outrageous and really shines a light into your character.
Did some hippies kidnap you and brainwash you or something?
Or were you simply against the war? Or were you rationally more concerned with saving your ass and not risking getting it blown off in some steaming jungle half way around the world?
But don't try to suggest that you didn't go because some people "denigrated military service" to the point where you didn't go.
And then you have the nerve to call "shame" on them for what? Saving your ass?
That's truly outrageous.
And now, looky here, you're a gung-ho armchair general cheerleading the boys as they get slaughtered in Iraq. Imagine that.
How are we supposed to get past that whopper??
I mean, the only excuse for not serving that's more of a stretch than yours is perhaps Tom Delay's, who when asked at the '88 convention why he and Quayle had gotten deferments rather than serving in Vietnam said, "So many minority youths had volunteered...that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself."
But your's is right up there.
I think other commenters have laid out the case for Rangel's call for a draft very well. Don't know exactly what more you want.
You seem to be utterly deaf or something, as every time people respond to your comments negatively, you utterly ignore their points, views, arguments, and opinions and act like they haven't responded at all.
It's truly like you think there's not been any serious thought or discussion on an issue unless someone completely agrees with you.
Take it from me. That won't always happen.
As to your point that a draft would "raise the standard of a country going in the wrong direction", how can anyone respond to that?
What the heck does it even mean? How would it "raise the standard", and how would it help change the direction of the country?
Dave Barrett, Mcainskid is joining the military so don't be so ignorant. Some will send their kids right into battle.
Actually most people that are in the mikitary their fathers were in also.
You are ignorant to this issue Dave.
Quit playing dumb Jim. I DID respond to your comment, TWICE I believe.
Enough.
Your comment at no time ever was trying to argue that the military wasn't a popular place to be in the 70's. It was rather you trying to blame this perception for having not served yourself.
I have no idea if the military was any less popular in the 70s as at any other time. I mean, at all periods in history, there are always those who feel the call to serve their country by joining the military. Apparently you weren't one. That's your choice.
But it certainly is rather fascile to turn around and try to blame a supposed anti-military atmosphere at the time for why you didn't serve.
I mean, I'm pretty sure they would have gladly accepted you if you had signed up.
I just perceived that you're pro-war now and in looking back are trying to say that you would have served had it not been for ... I don't know... peer pressure or something, you would have, and shame on those folks who didn't have a pro-war, pro-military attitude for keeping people like yourself from putting your asses on the line.
I find that distasteful and I've said it four times now. How many more times do I have to respond before you'll stop accusing me of not responding??
This is like talking to a stump.
It's true. I have no idea what you still want to debate that hasn't been already discussed and opinions given.
Yet you simply ignore it and always respond that no one is debateing the issue.
Don't confuse agreeing with you with "debate".
Your anti-Israle slip is showing herr Dope!
What the hell???!!
I have NO idea where that's coming from.
I have nothing against any "Israle"
Now as to the policies of their government... don't get me started.
Post a Comment
<< Home