Rangel IS Right.
November 20th, 2006 | by Jersey McJones |Rangel Says He Will Revive Legislation to Impose Military Draft
By Nadine Elsibai
Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) — Democratic Representative Charles Rangel said he will again introduce legislation to revive a U.S. military draft when his party takes control of Congress in January.
No more of that sleazy murderer Reagan’s “Professional Army.” It leads to disaster. George Washington, our first great general of our first great war, and Eisenhower, our last great general of our last great war, knew this and warned us. We didn’t listen. With a draft - a real, fair and honest draft - wars like the debacle in Iraq would be a thing of the past (we learned that from Vietnam), and wars like the one in Afghanistan would be fought right. Rangel, my smart brave man, go for it. I don’t care what political capital it costs - BRING BACK THE DRAFT… or at least talk about it.
JMJ
48 Responses to “Rangel IS Right.”
By steve on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Why? It takes the spirit of volunteering out of it! (sort of)
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
The military is for fighting wars, when necessary, not “the spirit of volunteerism.” That’s what the Boy Scouts are for. What’s the matter, Steve? Afraid of something?
JMJ
By tos on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I agree they should have the draft as long as it is a well laid plan,like what would the penalty be for avoiding the draft and who would be eligible. I would imagine that alot of young liberals would be against fighting for the country especially if they were forced to. I think it would cleanse the country of them.
Nice talking points though! In the 2004 elections the democrats tried to use the line that Bush wanted to bring back the draft(of course you probably don’t recall that) to sway voters and all along it was Rangel saying it.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Tos, “cleanse of the country of them?” You sound like fuckin’ Hitler. It didn’t do it last time around - I don’t see why it would now. No, I think we could have a conscientious objection and deferments for if you are marrried, or have kids, or are in medical school, or have physical disability. Then we’d see what little cowards you cons are when you run for office years later only to have to explain why you were against this war or that.
The Dems did not do that, you idiot. What they said was that he’d HAVE to bring back the draft if his failed wars continued failing. What they didn’t realize was just how cowardly the cons really are. They’d rather have our kids get maimed and slaughtered over there than do the righ thing for their own fuckin’ lousy cause.
JMJ
By manapp99 on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
How do you figure the draft would keep wars from happening? There is no logic to this position. However, if Charlie and the libs want to make this an issue, bring it on. This will insure a short lifespan for the Democrat congress.
By Nelson on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I have long been a supporter of required public service, but I believe that there should be more options that the military. Service in the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps (or whatever they’re calling it now), or in a revived Civilian Concervation Corps along with the the option of serving in the military should be required of our young people in this country. I work in a public high school, volunteered with AmeriCorps, and I believe that requiring some sort of public service (with payoffs like one finds in the military) would do a lot in helping this country grow and thrive and give EVERYONE a shot at higher education.
By liberal vet on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
How indeed man. Well a funny thing happen on the the way to Viet Nam. Suddenly no more college deferments. Making all those rich little white boys eligible for the draft. What happen next was protests on top of protests, ending the debacle. A perfect example of we the people exercising our rights. I am sensitive to this issue because I am a draftee. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Rangel is trying to even the playing field. I agree with him in his belief if all could be drafted the US would be far more cautious about going ot war. Especially with a misguided lump of shit like Rummy. JMJ, Good post my friend. LV
By Froenx on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
It’s called a volunteer army for a reason.
It gives people the option of joining the military under their own volition.
The only time I would support a draft is when everyone.. and I mean EVERYONE of age is drafted. that means you rich kids too (from tycoon to political families). Maybe you’ll find out what life is really like.
Question is (and this is directed at tos and manapp), if you are drafted, will you serve.. or will you duck out?
By steve on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
The best thing that could happen for the Republicans is the Democrats instituting the draft. I’d take that over raising taxes to pay for some illegal immigrant’s welfare any day.
Actually, I am in favor of you guys taxing us for illegals. Best thing that could happen for America.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Manapp, I know it isn’t easy for ya’, but try to follow me here:
When there is a draft EVERYONE is subject to the call of duty. The Draft democratizes war. It ensures that the political capital that must be spent to go to war is so high that only the most popular and legitimate of war is going to be engaged. And if you are so debased as to only care about partisan horseracing, fine. At least Rangel has the backbone to do the right thing, unlike you cheap, cowardly, selfish, simpleminded cons.
LV, I’m damned glad you see it my way. I never served, so I only can espouse an opinion from the outside looking in. You, on the other hand, have an opinion on this fr weightier than mine.
Froenx, I’m not sure I follow you, so allow me to propose clarification: everyone, that is not married, or in med school, or are truly physically or mentally unfit, or conscienciously object, should be eligible for the draft. Certainly we don’t want everyone to actually serve. That would be dictatorial totalitarianism.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Steve, okay, what the shit are you talking about? What tax? And why is it that you care more about the GOP than your country? Are you really so stupid as to believe that the GOP, a political party, truly has your best interests at heart?
JMJ
By liberal vet on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
For those who don’t know Rangel has supported initiating a draft for several years now. There is no better deterrent to unnecessary wars. When the country club set face the same risks as the common man. The fat cats will think twice about waging a war based on false pretenses. JMJ you are well read and even though you never served you got your finger on the real issue. We have become a class society. It is time we eliminated elitism and changed the playing field. When 16% of the population control 90% of the wealth something is wrong. LV
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I’m for it. I’ve said for a long time that we need many more troops in Iraq. I’ve said we could get them from bases in places like Germany, Okinawa, and elsewhere where they are no longer vitally needed but there doesn’t seem to be anyone in the Government taking me up on that. The other place is through the draft.
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think you can call Israel a dictatorial totalitarianism, Jersey.
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Apparently, the Democratic leadership of the House aren’t keen on the idea.
By Ditto on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
“I would imagine that alot of young liberals would be against fighting for the country especially if they were forced to. I think it would cleanse the country of them.”
As a guy whose 25 y.o. Army daughter is fighting for neo-con lies in Iraq, as a guy whose Army daughter registered as a Democrat and KNOWS what liberal and conservative means, as a guy that was a registered Republican and fiscal conservative (back when it meant something) I have one thing to say: Fuck you, tos.
By tos on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Thank you Ditto for those kind words. Don’t even let me get started on my family’s military history. Although I do not agree with women having to go to war.
By steve on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Fuck all you people!
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Craig, please God tell me you are not comparing Israel to the US! Israel is a tiny little nation with a small population surrounded by hostile neighbors. Of course they need a full draft. But then, what they do, if I’m not mistaken, is they draft kids out of high school and they serve a couple years or stay, depending on what they want and the country at any given time needs. There are deferments there too, though, as all societies, even Israel, need certain people to do certain things and not simply have everyone doing the same thing.
It is true that Pelosi et al are not keen on this issue. They realize that it is not popular with the wealth political-donor class, and generally not popular at this time because we are in the midst of an ill-planned, ill-concieved, ill-fought war. So, the best we can probably hope to get out of this is at least a discussion, as LV said, of American classism and the danger of the permanent military industrial complex and it’s permanent wars.
Tos, your argument couldn’t get much sleazier - first you insinuated that “liberals” were unpatriotic, then you insinuated that the country should be “cleansed” of people you disagree with, then you mentioned your “family’s” military history as if it was your’s personally. Three strikes and you’re sleazy. I’d change course on this if I were you.
But, for the sake of collegiality, let me say this for you - I too agree that women should not serve ion the infantry - as well as people with children, wives, or professional careers. Reagan’s “Professional Army” has become a giant welfare state that serves to elect Republicans and steal tax dollars for the MIC. Professional service people and non-coms aside, I believe that none of the aforementioned people should serve in time of peace, and rarely even at war.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
You said, “Certainly we don’t want everyone to actually serve. That would be dictatorial totalitarianism.”
I said, “I don’t think you can call Israel a dictatorial totalitarianism…”
Since all it takes to disprove the sort of assertion that you made (All A are B) is to give one counterexample (one example of an A that is not a B), I have proven that it is possible to have universal service without it leading to or having sprung from a dictatorial totalitarianism. Ergo, your assertion is faulty.
Actually, Kerry/Edwards had a similar plan of universal service although it would have allowed kids coming out of High School to do some form of service not connected to the military. For all of their faults, I don’t think that Kerry/Edwards were running on the dictatorial totalitarianism ticket. That would make two counter-examples, one of which actually would have involved this country, not a small, tiny country surrounded by enemies.
By steve on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
It’s ludicrous to really comment on this post anymore than I already have but…
Imagine how many people would suddenly “come out” if they had to go to the military?
Jersey, what say you?
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Craig, don’t give me that Socratic bullshit. Two seemingly opposing concepts can be true of the same thing. Only idiots can’t grasp that. Israel does that because Israelis want it because they know they have to have it. It is not a top-down writ on the people, it is a common understanding of a common cause. Nice try, goofenheimer.
The Kerry/Edwards idea was to tied to various credits and grants for the kids. It was not mandatory, but rather socially sanctioned. Nice try again, goofenstein.
Ask my wife, Steve. Besides, you got something against gays? Heck, I kinda thought gays would WANT to join the service, no? I mean, I would’ve love to join the YWCA when I was a kid! What say you, Stevenheimerstein?
JMJ
By christopher Radulich on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I believe there should be two year government service for all people directly out of High school. The only exceptions should be those who it would cost too much (to the taxpayers0 for them to serve.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Achtung, Radulich!
JMJ
By tos on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
JMJ-
You’re an ass that’s all I have to say to you. I don’t need you to tell me what is mine personally or not. I lost 2 cousins to Viet Nam.One mentally and one came back in a box. Luckily I didn’t loose all 7 members of my family all of who enlisted.
I was rejected due to severe migraines but would have went in as an officer due to my 4 years in the Naval Corps. I loved it. Our drill team was one of the best in our state. I could march circles around you and swing a rifle like nobody’s business.
So maybe not so affected me directly but at least I wanted to join and yes had I maybe I would have more of a stance here,possibly more of a stance than you.
As far as people disagreeing with me I think that shoe belongs on your foot.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
… and, ya’ know folks, the saddest part of this? Without the draft we WILL lose this war.
JMJ
By steve on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Ask your wife what? Like that is proof of your straightness? Wee bit defensive these days Jersey, aren’t we?
Oh and nice try with the, “You got something against gays?” bit. Classic liberal defense… change the subject!
My points are highly valid to this argument you brought up with your post. And you are an asshole! Quit it, and we might have more respect for you.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Ooh… I’m ass’s asshole!
Congratulations on your drill team, Tos. What would life be without them?
Steve, all I was doing was thropwing the bait right back at ya’, pal. Hope you enjoyed the minnow!
Your points are shit Socratic ‘if A is right than B must be wrong bullshit.’ It’s the same lousy logic the IDer’s use. You’re going to have to do better than millenia old philsophy, buddy boy.
JMJ
By icoman on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
At the Freedom From Religion Foundation conference last month one of the speakers is suing the U.S. Military. Him and his father are graduates of the Air Force Academy. His son is now attending the Academy and is being forced to become a Christian. He supplied plenty of references to support his argument. Nearly 90% of the U.S. Military is Christian. Bush & Congress passed a law lifting restrictions on Religious “expression” in the Military. Officers can, and often do, order enlisted personnel to get down on their knees and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is happening NOW all over the U.S. Military. Advancing in rank is difficult unless you’re a Christian.
Let’s think about this draft thing. I was drafted for a couple of years. Back in the 60’s there certainly weren’t 90% Christians in the Military. Bush first called it a “Crusade” after 9-11 and it looks like the Righties want to keep it that way. We have a right wing religious war machine.
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
Socratic bullshit? It’s called logic.
It really doesn’t matter why Israel has universal service. They are a non-dictatorial totalitarianism that has universal service. The person to whom you said the above was not espousing a dictatorial totalitarianism and, quite obviously, it does not require a dictatorial totalitarianism to have universal service. All it requires is a population that thinks it a good idea, to therefore elect people that will enact universal service.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Good point, Ico. Perhaps a draft would fix that.
Craig, that’s poor old ancient logic. And it was inherently self-defeating. If Socrates says that the presumption that we all know nothing than we can’t know what is truly right and contradictory to that presumed right. Get it?
“it does not require a dictatorial totalitarianism to have universal service. All it requires is a population that thinks it a good idea, to therefore elect people that will enact universal service.”
And we don’t want it. We alos, don’t want the draft. But that’s because we’re a bunch of unrealistic pussies.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
- oh and our draft wouldn’t be universal, it would be SELECTIVE.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Um, no, I don’t. Can’t make heads nor tails out of that statement in fact.
And we don’t want it.
Fine. Not my point at all. You made a statement that appeared to me to say that no nation but one run by a dictatorial totalitarian ruler could or would have universal service. That’s still the way it reads to me. Since there is at least one non-dictatorial totalitarian run nation that has universal service, I consider the thing conclusively proved. I was not, of course, arguing for universal service, merely challenging the statement that I quoted.
If it followed the template of past drafts, yes.
By tos on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Congratulations on your drill team, Tos. What would life be without them?
I don’t know about your life JMJ but it was good for mine.
Thanks for “sounding off”
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
tos,
Actually, once you get past the invective, JMJ has a point or two.
You did insinuate that liberals wouldn’t serve when many of the liberals here have served or have children serving.
You did say that liberals should join so they could be cleansed from the country.
Now whether that makes you sleazy or not I couldn’t say never having met you, but it does explain the offence ditto took when you not only said his daughter, who is serving, is unpatriotic but that you want her killed (unless you had some other meaning of cleansed in mind that I’m unaware of). If one of the liberals here had said such things about you, you would be up in arms, so tone down the faux outrage a little, would you?
By Jersey McJones on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Craig, go back to college.
Hey Paul, I thought my invective was endearing! (LOL!!!)
I think Tos meant cleansed in the ‘mid-washing’ sense. A little THX 1138.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
I’d love to but how about you go back and rewrite the sentence so that it makes some sense. That would be much easier.
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Oh nevermind.
I’m truly tired of this thread. To sum up, we both think it would be a good idea if some form of draft were instituted. As for the rest of it, if I make out what you’re saying, I think you’ve got the wrong philosopher. I’m not aware that Socrates ever denied the possibility of knowing what is right and even if he did it doesn’t touch on the logic that I used.
I’m through here.
By tos on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Take it easy Paul. You can’t really think I meant that in the literal sense.
By liberal vet on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
We should be able to agree with some of what Rangel is offering. A fair way to provide enough soldiers to protect and serve the nations needs. A fair and efficient system which treats all persons of draft age fairly without regard to race, creed color or economic status. This would make it a far fairer system and would be a deterrent to unnecessary military intervention leading to death and destruction. LV
By manapp99 on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
JMJ, it is impossible to follow your logic (or loack thereof) as this post of yours illustrates.
When there is a draft EVERYONE is subject to the call of duty. The Draft democratizes war. It ensures that the political capital that must be spent to go to war is so high that only the most popular and legitimate of war is going to be engaged..
Froenx, I’m not sure I follow you, so allow me to propose clarification: everyone, that is not married, or in med school, or are truly physically or mentally unfit, or conscienciously object, should be eligible for the draft. Certainly we don’t want everyone to actually serve. That would be dictatorial totalitarianism.
You want a draft so that the rich and powerful will be subject to serve, then have so many outs to avoid service that you can be sure the rich and powerful will have plenty to dodge with.
Further, what precedent can you cite for the draft making past Presidents avoid war?
By Jersey McJones on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
No Manapp, not “EVERYONE” is subject. If you are physically or mentally unfit, if you are a dangerous felon, if you are a sex predator, if you are married with children, if you are a last sibling with all the others serving, if you are needed in an important sector like medicine or militarily requistite r&d (though some of them would be quite handy), if you are to old, or too young, if you are right about to finish a grad or post-grad degree, if you are a part of the civilian infrastructural workforce or a civil engineer (though some of them would be quite handy as well), and on and on. So no, of course not “EVERYONE” would be subject as that would be either inhumane, counter-productive, or just plain stupid. What you need is as universal a draft as you can get. One that spreads service accross the classes.
The precedent for the draft averting “bad” wars is Vietnam. Prior to Vietnam there was a belief, albeit misinformed, that America was always a “good” country that always fought only “good” wars. Once the failure and “badness” of Vietnam became clear to the people, the draft became the most visceral focal point of the antiwar movement. Afterall, why should people be forced to fight in a war that is neither constitutionally declared nor is the right thing to do? People fled to Canada, burned their draft cards, and came up with all sorts of ways around serving (re: Bush/Cheney/etc…). And so the powers that be got rid of the draft because they realized that they would not be able to fight colonial, or corporate, or racist, or contrived for the sake of the MIC, wars with the draft. They would need a “professional” “Volunteer” force so that when people creid out “how dare you waste these human lives on your colonial, corporate, racist, MIC wars!,” the powers that be could say “well, they signed up for it - whatever it may be.” And that’s what Mr Rangel is saying we must be rid of.
JMJ
By tos on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Rangel just wants attention.
By manapp99 on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
I guess I should have put your comment about “Everyone” being subject to the call of duty in quotes. I was trying to point out how in a single post you go from everyone being subjected to all the derferments you list that will get the elite out of service. Rangels point is that if the elite are suject to war, we will not wage war lightly. This is, of course, folly as the elite will continue to skirt the draft as they always did before using one of the many deferments. The ones who will get burned will be the poor and middle class who do not wish to serve and cannot manufacture a reason to abstain.
Vietnam is a poor example as we endured there for more than a decade with the draft. I asked what war was avoided due to the draft. It is, imho, folly to believe that a draft would add any pressure at all to the Presidents decision to send troops to war. This is just Rangel torturing logic and facts to try to make a class distinction out of who serves. Class warfare is the only war that the Democrats have any stomach to sustain.
And to the idea of popular wars. There has never been one. History shows that even WWI, II and the civil war had plenty of oppostion. Especially as time wore on. The difference with modern warfare is the news coverage. We have more of it and more people have more access. This leads to quicker turn around of public opinion when it does not go well. And no war has gone well.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Tos, you are one lousy judge of character. The majority of his pwn district is against the draft (of course, they have no clue what Rangel is really up to here). His party leaders are against him. The media portrays his efforts in simplistic incorrect terms. The only attention he wants is to the war and it’s proponents, not just himself.
What a stupid thing to say. Turn off the Hannity, goofball.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
First of all, Manapp, Rangel and I and LV et al know full well that the draft is not going to become reality. What we want is a discussion of America at war. When should we fight wars? Against whom? Who should fight them? Who should make the decision to go to war, the Congress, as per the Constitution, or the President, just because a weak Congress would rather pass the buck? Who should get deferments and who shouldn’t? Should there be such a large standing professional volunteer military? Does that not create opportunity for wars of malicious, or ideological, or otherwise unwise intent? Are we not now fighting wars with the poor and disenfranchised by proxy of the volunteer army combined with a disparate economy even more than we would with the draft? How could we make a fairer draft, or a fairer volunteer service? Is a volunteer professional army no more than a mercenary force? If the Congress declares wars, and the Congress is the voice of the people, then should not wars be fought, paid for, and generally sacrificed by all the people, and not just a paid mercenary force? It goes on and on.
That’s what this is about. Try to wrap your mind around those points and many, many more, and you’ll begin to get what this is about.
JMJ
By tos on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Rangel is just full of hot air. He needs to cool it he’s making the climate warmer.