Dem. Rangel Calling for Military Draft

[sox4lifeinPA]

Rangel's Draft Idea

 

In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. It went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

 

 

wow, no way this is gonna happen.

[southsider2k5]

And all along we were told it was going to be the Republicians who brought back the draft...

[NorthSideSox72]

And all along we were told it was going to be the Republicians who brought back the draft...

For the record, some of us said it would only be necessity that brought back the draft. Both parties will avoid it (with a few individual exceptions) at all costs, of course.

 

But if we stay in force in Iraq for another few years, which I still believe we need to do (and maybe even add some troops), then I think we may have our hand forced in 2007 or 2008.

[FlaSoxxJim]

By way of Cokey Roberts' commentary this morning, Rangel of course doesn't believe the idea will have any more traction now than it did in 2003. Now, as then, his point is that children of the privileged are not doing their share of the fighting and dying in the all-volunteer military and maybe this is something that should be examined.

[Rex Kickass]

I support bringing back the draft. Something similar to what Germany's done in the last fifty years. You serve a year in the military or two doing civil service a la Americorps.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I support bringing back the draft. Something similar to what Germany's done in the last fifty years. You serve a year in the military or two doing civil service a la Americorps.

 

I agree completely, and as long as there are non-military service tracks like AmeriCorps, Red Cross, or Peace Corp equivalents then i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now. Particularly if college opportunities were bundled into those tracks in the way the GI Bill provides a path to higher education as a reward for military service.

[YASNY]

Hey all you young Soxtalkers, Charlie Rangel Wants You!!!

 

I wonder why we are hearing about this on Nov 20 as opposed to Oct 20. Hmmmm.

[kapkomet]

Bull crap. This is just another mechanism to "make it harder to go to war"... which after all, the Dems are peace loving hippy freaks.

 

BTW, it won't work, even if for some weird reason the draft came back.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bull crap. This is just another mechanism to "make it harder to go to war"...

And this is bad why?

 

I think Rangel has, in some ways, the right idea. War costs money and lives and we cannot fight a war this huge, plus another way in Afghanistan, for years and years and expect the all-volunteer military to make it through intact. Not going to happen. If this puts people in a realistic mindset about the costs of war, and makes us less likely to go to war, then we are all much better off.

 

By the way, I agree with the other posters about mandatory national service in the military or civil service of some kind. Just a year or two. But it would represent so many positives for everyone.

[YASNY]

As long as there are people around (us oldsters) that remember we forced our young men to go to Viet Nam to fight, but not to win, then the draft will never come back. Once we are gone, who knows what will happen.

 

I still hate Lyndon Baines f***ing Johnson!

[mr_genius]

A draft is a really bad idea.

Edited November 20, 2006 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

What's so bad about it? Because you don't want to go if called?

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think anyone likes the idea of a draft. But I am more than OK with mandatory service along the lines of what is discussed here.

 

As for the present situation, its not a matter of good and bad - it will soon be a matter of necessity. By 2008, if we haven't substantially reduced our forces over there, we would have no choice but to scale down or do a draft.

[mr_genius]

What's so bad about it? Because you don't want to go if called?

 

i don't think the government should have authoratitive power to forcefully mandate service to the coutry unless there is a relevant and immediate threat to the survival of the country.

[NorthSideSox72]

i don't think the government should have authoratitive power to forcefully mandate service to the coutry unless there is a relevant and immediate threat to the survival of the country.

Exactly what I was getting at earlier. Iraq was nothing like that kind of threat, and yet we put ourselves in a position to have to build a nation - a 10 year process by most accounts. And that isn't feasible at current troop levels.

 

I do respect your view on this, and you make a compelling point. Its hard to justify that sort of degradation of freedom. But there are some serious positives too.

[Flash Tizzle]

I agree completely, and as long as there are non-military service tracks like AmeriCorps, Red Cross, or Peace Corp equivalents then i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now. Particularly if college opportunities were bundled into those tracks in the way the GI Bill provides a path to higher education as a reward for military service.

If a draft were reinstated and non-military options were available, you bet your ass I'm entering any division which doesn't require combat. As would any sensible person.

 

Although it must be easy for anyone outside the draft age -- such as yourself -- and without children within the appropriate 18-24 age range -- such as yourself -- to support such a decision.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm out of the draft range now, but even if I wasn't (and with what Rangel is proposing, I wouldn't be) I would still support this.

 

What's the phrase that so many of the Hannitys of this world want to spit out every five minutes? I think it's Freedom Isn't Free.

 

And the truth is, I don't see compelling service to your country to be an abridgement of freedom. Especially if there is a community service component to it. If anything, I think its empowering to our country.

 

Why?

 

With an educated populace that has its sons and daughters in a compelled national service commitment, it makes us less likely to use our country's military might unless it was absolutely necessary. Wars of folly would become less frequent. Why? Because it could be that Senator's son in the crossfire.

 

And think of the social benefit of having people of all classes working together helping out those in need in our society. Our society would be much stronger with a national service commitment.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll tell you what. I'd rather see my freedom abridged by requiring me to put a year into the service of my country, then to think that the government is peering into my life without any jurisprudence. Why, you might ask? Because a requirement of civil service is honest, up-front, and has tangible benefits. Warrantless searches and indefinite detainments are subversive and have the stench of imperialism.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If a draft were reinstated and non-military options were available, you bet your ass I'm entering any division which doesn't require combat. As would any sensible person.

 

Although it must be easy for anyone outside the draft age -- such as yourself -- and without children within the appropriate 18-24 age range -- such as yourself -- to support such a decision.

 

What I said was, "i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now."

 

As for my kids, when they are of age and tell me they want to do an Americorps or Peace Corps tour (or some cumpulsory equivalent if adopted by then), I'll be elated, supportive, and extremely proud of them. I would have benefited extremely from participation in either between college and grad school and had a knock-down dgargout with the old man about it, and bottom line I declined the opportunity when it was available to me and will always regret it.

Edited November 21, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

I think that Rangel issuing this is a hypocritical thumb it in your nose move. That's why this bothers me. So much for the "new tone" and "work together" bulls*** that was spewed a day after the election.

[Balta1701]

I think that Rangel issuing this is a hypocritical thumb it in your nose move. That's why this bothers me. So much for the "new tone" and "work together" bulls*** that was spewed a day after the election.

And Bush hasn't spent the last 2 weeks flipping the bird to the new majority?

[mr_genius]

And the truth is, I don't see compelling service to your country to be an abridgement of freedom. Especially if there is a community service component to it. If anything, I think its empowering to our country.

 

Why?

 

With an educated populace that has its sons and daughters in a compelled national service commitment, it makes us less likely to use our country's military might unless it was absolutely necessary. Wars of folly would become less frequent. Why? Because it could be that Senator's son in the crossfire.

 

it certainly is an infringement of liberties to have an overbearing government that madates all citiznes give years of service in any form. the "well, a senator won't vote for a war if his kids are drafted" is also a failing argument. even when there was a draft the wealthy and those well-connected to the governement have found ways to have their children avoid any type of cambat service.

 

oh, and i'm not against a draft because i don't want to get drafted. i'm too old to get drafted.

 

 

I'll tell you what. I'd rather see my freedom abridged by requiring me to put a year into the service of my country, then to think that the government is peering into my life without any jurisprudence. Why, you might ask? Because a requirement of civil service is honest, up-front, and has tangible benefits. Warrantless searches and indefinite detainments are subversive and have the stench of imperialism.

 

 

Well, the government shouldn't do either. i don't support forced government labor. i don't support the government illegally spying on citizens.

[Flash Tizzle]

What I said was, "i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now."

 

As for my kids, when they are of age and tell me they want to do an Americorps or Peace Corps tour (or some cumpulsory equivalent if adopted by then), I'll be elated, supportive, and extremely proud of them. I would have benefited extremely from participation in either between college and grad school and had a knock-down dgargout with the old man about it, and bottom line I declined the opportunity when it was available to me and will always regret it.

I regret writing the post in a deragatory manner, but I just feel your opinion --among others supporting mandatory servicet -- would be entirely different if there was an immediate risk to you of your family.

 

Really, I'd be interested in how a large contingent of Soxtalk feels about such an issue.....

 

I won't lie -- I'd seriously be scared of fighting abroad if drafted. Hopefully, a college degree and placement in either graduate or law-school could assist in elevating my status to a position deep in basecamp. You know, in the rear with the gear. Alternative options (such as Peace Corps) wouldn't be available; unless the idea of mandatory service begins. Which I have to believe would be off the table until the 08' presidential elections conclude.

 

I realize the immediate risk of a military draft is relatively low. However, there's no fortelling what happens with that festering bowl of hatred we call the Middle East. I'll be within draft age for several more years; and if I recall collectly, the draft selects those oldest than moves down.

 

You grew during in the 80's, no? Talk about good living -- right between Vietnam, Gulf War, and the current conflicts. Atleast with the Soviets you were only under the threat of complete annihilation at the hands of thermonuclear weapons.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[FlaSoxxJim]

You grew during in the 80's, no? Talk about good living -- right between Vietnam, Gulf War, and the current conflicts. Atleast with the Soviets you were only under the threat of complete annihilation at the hands of thermonuclear weapons.

 

I didn't take any personal offense at your post, but I did want to emphasize that this is a long-held belief for me.

 

Yeah, 1985 was when I registered for selective service on turning 18. And back in those relarively halcyon days even a straight military option would have been a safe tour, but one that in a draft situation I still would have been a conscientious objector to as an avowed pacifist. You're able to check the objector status box when you register so that's fair enough, but it was still frustrating because I wanted very much to have an opportunity to perform national service in a non-military capacity.

[kapkomet]

And Bush hasn't spent the last 2 weeks flipping the bird to the new majority?

Yea, it's always different, and somehow it always comes back to something caused by Bush. Thanks for making my point for me.

 

I seem to recall that Clinton, Kerry, and others in the Democratic Party voted FOR the war...

 

oh, but Bush lied. /ROLLY

 

They had the same damn evidence shoved under all of their noses, and chose to commit to war. OH WAIT, it's different. It always is.

 

:::::

 

Back to the subject. Part of me agrees with the sentiment to volunteer, part of me doesn't. It goes along the lines of what mr_genius was saying that I don't think people should be forced to volunteer. And God bless those who do, seriously. Part of me, though, after volunteering for some things (although not full time) on my own, you certainly get a hell of a lot of neat, great experiences. But would they be so great if forced into it?

 

It's not so easy to say "hell yea, force kids out of high school to volunteer"... yet, it is.