Will we all be drafted in the USA? by Geezer

Sounds like you have a genuine circle jerk going here already.

I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory military service. I'm not surprised that the republicans run from the idea...I take it you wouldn't be able to get a deferrment?

On the one hand I don't want any part in forcing our sons and daughters to serve in our armed forces when our government can be prone to loose cannonism, when it can be disposed to send them off to a war for profit.

On the other hand, I think that it would not be so much to ask our citizens to participate in our nations security... to sacrifice a year and a half of our lives to a noble cause...and why mandatory? so that people don't take war lightly. so that people see the faces of their sons and daughters when they think about a mililtary conflict, so that they aren't cavalier in the face of a decision that should not be taken lightly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
On the one hand I don't want any part in forcing our sons and daughters to serve in our armed forces when our government can be prone to loose cannonism, when it can be disposed to send them off to a war for profit.
On the other hand, I think that it would not be so much to ask our citizens to participate in our nations security... to sacrifice a year and a half of our lives to a noble cause.

So who decides if it's a "war for profit" or a "noble cause"? Per the proposed legislation, it's the President.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:48 PM

Geezer,

You're absolutely right.

This is the sort of thing that happens with democrats. The dems could have attacked the Bush agenda and scaled it down, that would have been what they would have done if they were the sort of people liberals think they are. Instead, they are going to run their own agenda, which is just as bad, just as corrupt and just as dumb as the current republican agenda.

In time, liberals will see that their party is just as bad a representative of their point of view as the current republicans are of ours. The sad thing is that so many people on both sides just bend their world view to match those of our elected officials.

But for Christ's sake: Take wiretapping and torture seriously. What kind of conservative are you? When was this ever a liberal issue? I'm not going to back off and become a liberal because I don't think they have the answers, but I'm sure not going to support the idea that pro-torture is a conservative position just because Bush took it.

Seriously.

It's like a devil's strawman handed to us. If I supported the death penalty, I'd say Bush and company should be executed for it, but I don't, so I'll say they should be exiled for it. They're no kind of Americans in my book.

Back to the draft...

Okay, will it happen, the draft?

Yes.

Will Rangel's bill pass?

No.

It's not going to go through the way he wants it, but there will finally be some conscription compromise bill. If no one has notice the trend in the last 15 years, the united states as been moving backwards on rights issues, not forwards. You right not to be shipped off to Iraq and shot at by angry muslims, (who have every reason to be angry, by the way, if people were dropping bombs on me...) that right, will eventually be taken away.

My guess is that it will be traded for others. Certain guarantees which now exist, such as education, unemployment insurance, disability, etc., are probably all going to be contingent on service. I don't know if it will be putting your hat in the ring for a random draw, it might be more direct. Something like "old benefits are now cut to near nothing, new *improved* benefits are much like old benefits used to be, but they're only available to army reservists" which is a draft-the-poor plan, which is what democrat leadership really wants. Rangel wants "draft the rich," which is pure fantasy, and he want "any service is service," which will also never happen. The feds don't want workers, they want bullet-stoppers.

Quote:
Kaneman

I read somewhere that a possible option, if that law passes, to fulfill your obligation would be to sit in a tree for 15 months protecting it from loggers.....

I think this is an excellent idea.

Actually, I have much less problem with Rangel than I do with the democratic party as a whole.

PirateCat,

You left out nuking shintos, and also just slaughtering asians at every opportunity.

Righteous,

The draft is the most heinous idea outside of torture and genocide, and ecoside. But still, draft is pretty awful. Most people completely miss why it is the worst defense policy idea ever:

The draft is license for unchecked war.

The truth is, any nation with a volunteer fighting force relies on recruitment to keep fighting. When the fighting is not worth fighting for, or the troops are not treated respectfully, recruitment goes down, which is what's happening now to us.

Now, what's happening to the US in Iraq, is *nothing* compared to the great military evils of history. If an army went on a Nazi or Soviet style killing binge without a draft, recruitment would hit zero.

The draft is free license to attack anyone anywhere with almost limitless force, limitless casualties, and total disregard for the troops. Anyone who doubts this, just look at Vietnam, or our entire draft history.

BTW, If the Iraq war is a "War for Profit" then it's a total failure. Bush could have fed his buddies at halliburton a hundred times more money with a run of the mill standard issue public works project.

The Iraq was is part of a globalist agenda with which I disagree, but I can't credit that the people behind it do not *believe* that they are doing the right thing. I am fairy certain they do believe. But I am just as sure that they are wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:48 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Dems only like to Bomb Catholics and send Jews back to the Nazis. That is a historical fact. The draft is a good thing when their in charge but what about all those poor minorities who have to go to the front when its a Rep in charge remember the Gulf War.

I like smacken em.

If that isn't a load of crap I don't know what is.

As for National Service. Whats wrong with that. I see no problem with serving ones country for a few months. Though I doubt it will ever make it out of Congress. I too am surprised that Republicans would be against it. Or maybe they are just agaisnt their children serving.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:55 PM

FMF

I know you're a partisan dem, and I suspect you work for the party. But as such, you have to know that the GOP generally does support individual rights, such as the right to choose what you want to do with your time, your money, and your life. Even truly appalling republican administrations like this one have to at some point support that idea.

I think that you will see a very different GOP on the defensive coming up, which will spend a lot of time and effort to distance itself from Bush. I don't think they will support the draft measure, but some of the more corrupt republicans will compromise on some draft-like bill, but not until Hillary is god-empress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:37 PM

DEEPGIRL187

Is anarchy and open revolt still an option?

*************************************************

"So long and goodnight."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

A universal draft into community service would really measure school success. Supposedly the US has a 99% literacy rate (CIA - The World Factbook) but the rates of functional illiteracy are as high as 20 - 30%. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n1.html And frankly, there's a lot to do in the country. Perhaps one could enter service one of two ways - a shorter military term or a longer non-military one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:46 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
Is anarchy and open revolt still an option?[/q]

Finally a suggestion I can get on board with...

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:47 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
Is anarchy and open revolt still an option?[/qoute]

Finally a suggestion I can get on board with...

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 5:00 PM

SIRI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A universal draft into community service would really measure school success. Supposedly the US has a 99% literacy rate (CIA - The World Factbook) but the rates of functional illiteracy are as high as 20 - 30%. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n1.html And frankly, there's a lot to do in the country. Perhaps one could enter service one of two ways - a shorter military term or a longer non-military one.

Rue,
My brother and I were discussing this tonight. While I've not sure how I feel about a mandatory draft, but I agree with you that some sort of public service doesn't seem like a bad idea. Perhaps with options of paying off student loans or future educational opportunities.

I don't think we'd be fighting in Iraq today if there had been a draft in effect.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 5:41 PM

Rue,

Big picture. Blank check for limitless war.

Also, the public service corps... who pays them? If we think we can tax the money society and pay for this, we have another thing coming, because the money society already has one foot out the door, and has reservations on a cayman island cruise.

America is already very close to bankrupt. We need a serious economy revitalization before we can talk about having any money to spend at all.

Quote:

Is anarchy and open revolt still an option?

No. You'll get labelled a terrorist and sent to guantanamo and tortured. It doesn't matter which party is in power.

I think the only viable anti-federalist option is secession, but it would be very tricky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:46 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

this was on CNN tonight , edited:

Quote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said
(snipped)
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft."

(snipped)

Polls show most Americans oppose a draft

Well, he's right about that part in the middle.

But the guy's a Democrat.
And of course, he explained this world -shaking truth AFTER the election, when nobody can touch him for the next 2 years.

30 years we've had no draft, NO SLAVE ARMY, which is what the draft is, gorrammit, and a discretionary war we got into because of lies leads the opposition party to turn our back on that test of personal responsibliity and liberty. Maybe I shoulda voted Republican.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:46 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

this was on CNN tonight , edited:

Quote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said
(snipped)
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft."

(snipped)

Polls show most Americans oppose a draft

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:00 PM

Geezer to answer your question, the people would decide, not the president.

The president may say he doesn't give a shit about the polls but that's rarely true.

If there was ever a reason to be up on politics it would be your children being in the armed forces in the time of crisis. The american people would decide it was a noble cause - that would be the true test of whether or not a war is truly believed noble by the populace.

But yes, ultimately the President makes the decision and that's why I'm inclined at the moment, having little information, to side against such legislation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:10 PM

HKCAVALIER

Since when was the draft anything but a horrible, horrible injustice? I don't understand how Liberals/Democrats/whatever can be so vehemently supportive of a woman's right to choose whether she brings a baby to term or not, but completely accepting of forced labor. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, and if you support a draft, go sign up!

Just because something is worthwhile, like public service, doesn't mean the government should be allowed to FORCE people to do it.

And, correct me if I wrong, but aren't draftees simply cannon fodder?

I gotta say I'm pretty disgusted that right out of the box this is what our democratic leadership thinks the country needs. Rather than address the raft of injustice the Bush admin. has committed they start brewing up their own version.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:27 PM

SOUPCATCHER

The motivation behind this legislation can be found from the following press release (emphasis mine):

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft05262005.
html
...

"The longer we stay in Iraq and the more Americans are killed, and the less attractive military service appears to potential recruits, the closer the country will move toward a decision on the draft," Congressman Rangel said.

"The American people lost confidence in this war long ago, and now that parents are discouraging their children from volunteering, we are faced with a situation in which the most disadvantaged young people from areas of high unemployment will be even more likely to carry the greatest share of the burden," Congressman Rangel said. "If the President wants to do something right now, he should publicly appeal to all Americans to make a personal sacrifice to benefit the war effort."

"Despite the evidence to the contrary, it is just too easy for the President to give assurances that our military would be available and ready to carry out regime change, wherever and whenever he and his advisors want to, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea," Congressman Rangel said.

"The President said in his State of the Union address that war was an option that remained on the table in dealing with these countries. In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms. As other people's children endure a grinding war, they have been given huge tax cuts, while our veterans have gotten cuts in health benefits," Congressman Rangel said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:08 PM

Interesting take HKCavalier --

I don't see how using our volunteers for cannon fodder would be any more acceptable to you.

See, to me the point of having mandatory service would be that EVERYBODY must serve, and that hopefully, the public pressure would demand the strictest of standards before turning our boys and girls, as you put it, into cannon fodder.

The problem with Americans these days is that we dont' feel the need to understand anything...we don't feel the need to pay attention, we don't feel the need to be informed about the Iraq conflict, or to concern ourselves with what the rest of the world thinks, because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for this war. A neccesary war should only be one we as a nation are willing to sacrifice for. I think this might keep the system more honest...

but this is me thinking out loud. I do think there are other less objectionable ways to deal with my concerns. There should be laws against companies making a profit during a time of war, as just one example.

edited to add --

I don't think it's an infringement upon our democracy to agree democratically to certain mandatory sacrifices for our freedom. In this case, I actually see it making our nation's people more involved in our democracy, which could only make it a truer one. Don't hold me to this though. Might change my mind tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Imma hafta call BS on this whole concept here.

Firstoff, the first place I heard this concept expressed was the book Starship Troopers, written by a downright nutter who's completely on-board with the Leo Strauss bandwagon, which, given recent events while such people had dominance over our government, oughta give you some pause when considering such a thing.

We are NOT servants of the state, people, we're it's masters - and to forget that even for a moment is a disservice and a negligence of your civic duty.

Secondly, I did not ASK to be born here, and that happy (or unfortunate, if you like) accident should not automatically obligate me to a damned thing - I am not this governments chattel, and they've already gotten as much service as I deemed it worthy to give them, in exchange for certain obligations on their part which they utterly failed to fulfill, thus breaching my contract - be damned if I'd give them a second bite, or encourage anyone else to give em a first.

Our system as it stands is rife with abuse, and every day that passes sees it engineered further to protect and reward that abuse, and at this time a big part of our check and balance as citizens is that we can tell them to piss up a tree - and you wanna meekly hand over even that?
Disgusting.

The very minute you make something "Mandatory" you leave it open to massive exploitation, just witness school uniforms worth $26.00 shooting up to $112.15 after they've been made "Mandatory" in a school district.

This would be little different, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the first people sent would be those who aren't in lockstep with the current administration and thier policies, followed quickly by those social undesireables that the ivory tower crowd wants eliminated - for them it's win-win, they get their war for profit, enrich the war machine profiteers, keep the reins of power solid, and flush the society of those they do not want - a social form of eugenics, you might say.

The whole concept needs to be tossed on the scrapheap, entire.

Oh, and as for the GOP ever, ever actually following through on the "your life, your business" rhetoric ?
Smell what you're shovelling, history proves that a lie all the way back up through the Whigs - they've NEVER done so, and never will.

And for the few that mentioned it...
If you are having to ask yourself if it's time for an armed revolt ?
Then it's already too late for one.
Best bet is to get them to destroy themselves, which doesn't take nearly as much effort as one would think, just witness the circular firing squad the GOP has fast become as things come apart on them.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have to admit to being disappointed. There are other things the democrats could be focusing on.

This gets back to the thread - what do you want the democrats to do? I've been mulling it over. The polls said corruption and ethics (42%), terrorism (40%), the economy (39%), Iraq (37%), and values (36%). (I presume 'values' is code for same-sex marriage, but I could be wrong.) http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/

Politically, it is incumbent on the democrats to police their own ranks to avoid the same scandals, AND to strengthen Congressional ethics rules. It's also important to hold hearings and investigations on what the republicans did wrong. Not for revenge, but because the recent workings of the government need to be made transparent to the people, and to be indelibly written into history.

For the sake of the country, laws need to be passed to make sure a 'unitary executive' will never approach the level of dictatorship as we have recently seen - under any pretext. And government needs to be restructured to insure that politics will not drive intelligence, science, and medicine. The US needs a stable, non-partisan bureaucracy. And military contractors need to be put under the same legal code as uniformed soldiers. Private entities doing government business and being paid by the government shouldn't be exempt from the rules of war.

The 2000, 2004 and 2006 votes need to be investigated. Not just the voting machines and counting machines, but registration and access. Running the voting process - from registration to counting - needs to be made non-partisan, transparent and secure.

At the same time the country has been driven to near ruin in many ways, and one of them is the military. Rumpsfailed intended to drive the military to extinction. There may be no popular solution at this point to bringing the US back to military readiness. And the fact is the US cannot address either NK or Iran, or indeed any other potential military threat. A draft may be the only solution left.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 2:06 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Since when was the draft anything but a horrible, horrible injustice? I don't understand how Liberals/Democrats/whatever can be so vehemently supportive of a woman's right to choose whether she brings a baby to term or not, but completely accepting of forced labor. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, and if you support a draft, go sign up!

Just because something is worthwhile, like public service, doesn't mean the government should be allowed to FORCE people to do it.

And, correct me if I wrong, but aren't draftees simply cannon fodder?

I gotta say I'm pretty disgusted that right out of the box this is what our democratic leadership thinks the country needs. Rather than address the raft of injustice the Bush admin. has committed they start brewing up their own version.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Amen, well stated HK....you get no argument here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 3:43 AM

ZEPH

Couple of points here:

Rangel has been talking about this idea for several years now -- so claiming that he's only started talking about this after the election is misinformed. Not surprising, the mainstream media news outlets haven't even come close to doing their jobs for the last eight years or so.

He has also said that he would not support his own idea if it were later amended to allow deferments. He has also admitted that it has virtually no chance of ever being enacted. It is more of a rhetorical device within which he comments upon the fact that the majority of Republican leadership at this time are all for going to war, when they did not serve in the military themselves.

Sadly, this is information that you just can't get on televised "news" networks or programs, or even in the print media. If only we had access to some sort of series of tubes that information is passed along (another political thing, that didn't really make much of an impact on the mainstream media, so I won't be surprised if no one gets it. Unless you watch Colbert...)

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
See, to me the point of having mandatory service would be that EVERYBODY must serve, and that hopefully, the public pressure would demand the strictest of standards before turning our boys and girls, as you put it, into cannon fodder.

Boy, that sure sounds nice...if everybody had to go, we'd really think hard before going. Its reason like that made Vietnam so popular.

The most distressing part of this whole argument is that a drafted force would suffer a substantial loss in quality similar to what we had in the pre-volunteer days.

Democrats want to raise your taxes and send your kids to Vietnam...Iraq...Vietnam...Irag...thats a recipe for victory in 2008.

My theory on the Wrangle's draft angle is the same as when I first heard it a few years back. The Democrats want Iraq to be Vietnam. They therefore must bring back the draft so they can campaign against it.

I also note for the record that the proportion of the minority black soldier versus non-black soldier casualties remains unfavorably balanced against the white soldiers when compared to their proportion in society as a whole or the military in particular. Perhaps when Wrangle is complaining about the unfair burden, he means not enough blacks are dying to make it fair...especially when compared to hispanics who are above average (although they are taking a large portion of the black share, not the white share).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 4:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not sure a draft would do what Rangel says it would, which is to force lawmakers into considering what war would do to their kids and grandkids. I think he has a quaint view of the USA. W/o question, the children of the wealthy would either get some kind of medical deferrment or some cushy stateside assignment, like Bush.

The question to think about is whether a draft shortens or lengthens the course of a war. There was a draft during the Vietnam War, and also considerable opposition. Do you think the war would have been shorter or longer w/o a draft? I think prolly shorter, since the "feedback" on entering a fraudulent war is (as DT pointed out) lowered voluntary enlistment.

As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea. Send an "army" of kids down to New Orleans to clean up and help rebuild, or reforest, or renovate inner city housing. You could get a lot done and "the kids" would learn something they otherwise wouldn't. But there might be repercussions on the wage structure if you have a whole swath of people working for whatever wages the Federal government would pay, at jobs that would prolly represent more skill than flipping burgers. Needs thought as to whether this would be a positive educational step.

It might be worth considering the idea if the Dems made some SERIOUS moves towards increasing other rights because if we create a bunch of government serfs, it had better be a government that we can throttle.

---------------------------------
Right now I'm not trusting anyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
W/o question, the children of the wealthy would either get some kind of medical deferrment or some cushy stateside assignment, like Bush.

You mean like Clinton. Far as I can recall, Bush was in the military and flew jets, which is no small-time job and one in line with his family's record of service. Sure, he could have gone infantry, but somebody had to fly those National Guard planes, why not Bush.

Clinton on the other hand spend his Vietnam tour smoking weed in some Anglish pub at Oxford with his KGB 'handlers'.

Quote:

As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea.

Yeah, until someone tasked them to do something they didn't want to do, like fight in Iraq. Then they'd be burning their cards and fleeing to Canada.

Or is this a backdoor health care plan. If everybody serves, everybody gets lifetime healthcare like soldiers get now. Maybe thats their real plan afterall.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It occurs to me that maybe Rangel's proposal is a bargaining chip, to be tied to any propsoal for invading Iran. It may not be a serious stand-alone proposition.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:23 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

As far as mandatory civilian service... it might be a good idea. Send an "army" of kids down to New Orleans to clean up and help rebuild, or reforest, or renovate inner city housing. You could get a lot done and "the kids" would learn something they otherwise wouldn't.

Sounds a lot like a great New Deal program- the Civilian Conservation Corps, where unemployed workers joined roaming labor camps that went about the country doing public works projects in exchange for room & board and a nominal wage. Not a bad idea...

Quote:

But there might be repercussions on the wage structure if you have a whole swath of people working for whatever wages the Federal government would pay, at jobs that would prolly represent more skill than flipping burgers. Needs thought as to whether this would be a positive educational step.

Sounds like a good reason not to suspend the Davis-
Bacon Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon#Hurricane_Katrina

Quote:
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, House Representatives Jeff Flake, Tom Feeney, Marilyn Musgrave, and other members of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) urged President Bush to temporarily suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in order to expedite the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast. President George W. Bush then issued proclamation 7924 to indefinitely suspend the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 (the Davis–Bacon Act) in designated areas in the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the areas most heavily hit by the hurricane...On October 26, 2005, after pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, Bush rescinded his emergency order and restored the prevailing wage requirement.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Rangel has been talking about this idea for several years now -- so claiming that he's only started talking about this after the election is misinformed."

That's true. Rangel FIRST proposed this in 2003. His next round was back in Februaury, 9 months ago. It's not a 'new' item, and had no debate and no consideration when it was introduced. Knowing this, Slick, as usual, put this up without making that explicit. He implied it was recent. AND his link didn't work. It took some internet searching to find the DATE it was resubmitted and the full text.

Given that, it's still worth discussion, though not on Slick's terms. Even if it was DOA on submittal and has zero chance of passing now, it forces consideration of the state of our military - which is dismal. And the idea of a CCC is still a good one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And the idea of a CCC is still a good one.

And why is that? We are already at or near universal employment. The standard was 5%, 5% was always considered universal employment.

Problem isn't folk finding jobs, its jobs finding folk.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 11:22 AM

ZEPH

I'm sure Hero is as completely disgusted with Vice President Cheney as he is with former President Clinton, considering Cheney had five deferments and "other priorities" than going to war.

I mean, that would just stand to reason, right?

And he would be equally disgusted with Dennis Hastert, or Tom DeLay, or Dick Armey, or John Ashcroft, or... Whew, that list goes on for a while, doesn't it?

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 2:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

The Dems have come out and stated that there will be no draft. No on is in favor of it, not even Rangel. He's simply trying to promote a false notion , that of rich, white America fighting this war.

But, baring some real state of emergency, and we really DO need a draft, it must be asked... Does a country deserve to remain free if its citizens refuse to voluntarily defend it ? The last thing we need is to force folks who don't want to sign up when there's no real pressing need.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 3:57 PM

ZEPH

Auraptor--

Personally, I don't see a problem with that in the U.S.

Consider recent history:
*After the attacks on 9/11, enlistment went to historic highs.
*When plans were made to use military force in Afghanistan -- to bring down the Taliban gov't, largely seen as synonymous with Al Queada -- enlistment rates remained high.
*When the country was led to believe that Iraq was a.) involved in the 9/11 attacks, b.) was producing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and c.) Iraq was a grave and gathering threat to the United States, enlistment remained high.

When it was discovered and reported that:
*Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs.
*Iraq was not involved with the 9/11 attacks or Al Queada.
*The "Mission Accomplished," wasn't.
*The insurgency was not, in fact, in its' last throes.
*We were largely not, in fact, greeted as liberators.
*Etc.
Enlistment rates plummetted.

It is my opinion that if one keeps the United States populace well-informed, well-motivated, and well-led, a military draft is not necessary in the foreseeable future.

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 4:33 PM

Quote:
But the guy's a Democrat.
And of course, he explained this world -shaking truth AFTER the election, when nobody can touch him for the next 2 years.

It was no big surprise, Rangel pulled the identical stunt after the 2004 election.

Quote:

Since when was the draft anything but a horrible, horrible injustice?

HKCavalier,

Well said. Absolutely. Thank you.

Quote:

"The President said in his State of the Union address that war was an option that remained on the table in dealing with these countries. In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms. As other people's children endure a grinding war, they have been given huge tax cuts, while our veterans have gotten cuts in health benefits," Congressman Rangel said.

This is Rangel's fantasy which I alluded to earlier. It's not anywhere near true, a draft would not do this, we know this for absolutely sure because we've had many forms of draft before, and hundreds of other countries have had thousands of other forms, and it has never done this.

But even if it *did*, so what? This misses the whole point. The current system is far more fair, because not only is it free-will-based, but it also makes the success of recruitment rely on the people's feeling about the military, which in turn, relies on the justness and prudence of the military's action, and of its treatment of its own.

Under the current system, if the the US truly behaved like Nazis or Commies, recruitment would stop dead. Under the draft, there would be an open door to limitless invasion of everyone, unbelievable wastes of human life, and total disregard for the troops. If you don't believe me, study some history, or just go watch Denzel Washington in "Glory" or anyone in any WWI movie from any side.

Recruitment keeps the military honest and fair, and it ultimately puts people like donald rumsfeld out on the street. And Rummy is nowhere near as bad as a typical WWI civilian leader. Sure, he sent them off to war without armor, unforgivable. But in WWI, people ordered troops into certain death offensives, and then ordered local commanders to order the troops directly into machine gun fire.

It's all a matter of scale. Bush is a horrible leader, on a recent-american-scale. On a historical american scale, Bush is about average. He's probably not as bad as Truman or Wilson, probably on a par with Johnson. But on a world-leader-scale, Bush is still probably pretty good. He doesn't open fire on his own people. He doesn't stop services to the people, or hold them hostage. He doesn't ban education, or free speech, and doesn't assassinate people who disagree with him. He's just bad, he's not oh-my-god-I'd-rather-have-Satan bad. He's not even Vladimir-Putin-bad. In fact, he's not as bad as Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac or Angela Merkel, all three of whom are willing to dissolve their own countries, and sacrafice all of their own peoples rights to forward their agenda.

The question we always have to ask ourselves, (Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty here) - is - will a change in our system make it a more free society, or a less free one. The curious thing is that a whole bunch of liberals who seemed to have passed that test when it came to Bush's wiretap, gitmoizing, and torture, have now failed it. What I had mistaken for insight, was really just blind partisanship. They can't see it when it's their own party doing it. Sadly, a fair number on the right also failed this test, when they failed to oppose Bush's anti-freedom measures.

So, does the draft make us more free? of course not. There's not even enough for a debate here. The all volunteer system gives we the people freedom of occupation, and it gives us a solid and direct measure of control over the US military policy. A draft system removes our most basic liberties and gives our govt. limitless power. This is really a no brainer.

And here's a tip to the left from someone who has been doing this for a couple of years now:

Attack your own side when they're wrong. It does not weaken your position, it strengthens it. It also earns respect from the other side. It you're a liberal who respects what I have to say, and don't respect what some others have to say, then I might have a point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 4:51 PM

Rue,

Reforming ethics rules is definitely NOT what the democrats should be doing. The ethics rules are fine, they just need to be enforced. Any CHANGE to the rules is bound to be a corruption. Murtha has said as much about this particualr package, and I figure he knows. But it's almost always true. The argument "we need new rules" is a sucker play to get someone to let you rewrite the existing longstanding "fair" rules with your new corrupt ones.

The democrats can only do one thing which will earn any respect from me, which is to undue some of Bush's executive over-reach, and no, rolling back his tax cuts will not help. I am not affected in any way by those tax cuts, but the economy is, and the federal spending is. But the wiretap, torture, secret prisons, patriot act, homeland security, etc. There's a whole bunch of bad policy here which needs undoing. If democrats can't do that, then they're not really the opposition to Bush, they're the continuation of Bush.

Whatever we need, it's not "new rules" or "new laws" we need to follow the old rules. If we make new rules here, it will not be you and me making them, it will be Bush and Clinton making them, and that will lead to disaster, and speed our course towards a dictatorship.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 4:53 PM

Auraptor,

If the US were under attack, people would defend it. A very large number of americans volunteered after 9-11 because they saw the country as being under attack. But this war now is not about defending america, it's about waging an ideological war against the enemies of Israel, and for other reasons, (Mefta, oil, etc.) But it is not about defending america.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:26 PM

First of all Dreamtrove, "our" party, as you put it, isn't pushingg any such thing. Rangel is a democrat but as far as I know every other democrat has distanced himelf from the proposal.

Secondly, only a couple of us liberals have defended the proposal, and all for the purpose of a dialogue. I posted that it might be a good idea, but that I wasn't sure, and that as it stood I'd still lean against it. There were some very serious concerns brought up about such a thing and I take those concerns seriously.

I know you'd love nothing better than to have something to point to so that you could say "see, democrats = as bad or worse," but your choice of evidence is lacking.

this isn't partisan head nodding.

As to whether the bill in question would make our country freer or less free, I'm siding more on the side of less free, but there are laws we pass that make us less free that infact are a matter of preserving our way of life, not of undermining it.

Taxes are not at will, but only the craziest liberetarian believes that we shouldn't pay any taxes.

Such laws are sometimes acceptable, providing that they do not infringe upon rights expressly granted in the Constitution. Therein lies a huge difference between a draft and warrantless wiretapping, or the suspension of Habeus Corpus.

As to whether mandatory service would actually ad to the perservation of Democracy, I thought maybe, but I have more doubts than hopes for such a drastic solution, and I think such a thing could be done better by a new vision for America that asks its people for more involvement, rather than forcing it upon us.

.............

Oh, and Bush is a horrible leader on any scale...he's just held in check by some very good American laws, and an American Citizenry that still likes to maintain a little decency and democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
When it was discovered and reported that:
*Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs.
*Iraq was not involved with the 9/11 attacks or Al Queada.
*The "Mission Accomplished," wasn't.
*The insurgency was not, in fact, in its' last throes.
*We were largely not, in fact, greeted as liberators.
*Etc.
Enlistment rates plummetted.

It is my opinion that if one keeps the United States populace well-informed, well-motivated, and well-led, a military draft is not necessary in the foreseeable future.

A few minor corrections -

*Iraq did have WMD and a WMD program - just not at the levels which were suspected. - Either way, it failed to abide by UN resolutions.
*Iraq never was a primary suspect in the 9/11 attacks.
*The "Mission Accomplished " was - Saddam's military was defeated. ( Not to mention that specific carrier's mission was also accomplished )
*In many sections of Iraq, the US was indeed welcomed as liberators. Just because the 6 o'clock news didn't show it doesn't mean it's not true.
*Enlistment rates have not plummeted, but have met or exceeded expected goals. Same goes for re-enlistment.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 11:36 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Just because something is worthwhile, like public service, doesn't mean the government should be allowed to FORCE people to do it.

Thank you.

I am unequivocally against a draft for national service or defense, period. However, having said that, I believe Righteous has a point worth considering. Scott Peck (author of Road Less Traveled) also talked about this. Average citizens are so distant from war decisions that their apathy allows their governments to go to wars they morally oppose. Peck's solution is the draft. It will force the issue home and the apathy out. It will force citizens to TAKE responsibility for their government's choice to engage in something as devastating as war. Peck believes drafts will decrease the frequency and severity of wars.

If I HAD to consider a draft, it would only under the condition that war was a near-unanimous choice of the entire voting population. If say, 90% of the citizenry believes the cause is worth dying and killing for, then yes, it would be more equitable to spread the risk to all able-bodied persons (as opposed to being shouldered by only volunteers). I am a staunch individualist, but war is one of those few responsibilities that has to be carried by the collective--as long as war is a decision the collective can vote on directly.

Whether a draft is an issue or not, I believe going to war should be a direct vote issue anyway. It's just not right to go abroad and kill folks in the name of all Americans without all Americans having a say-so in it.

IMHO, there is absolutely no convincing rationale for FORCED public service.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

------------
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
-- Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:37 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Frack big centralized government/business/insurance that's capable of even imagining some of the scenarios posted to this thread.

Frack the Demoncrats and Repuglicans alike who do nothing to represent the people who elect them, other than serve as a PR front who looks pretty on the outside while the Cthulhu crawl beneath their masks in the shells that used to be their bodies when they were human.

Frack the bullshit war which serves no other purpose than enslaving the men and women on both sides of the made up battle.

Frack the draft. They'll have to kill me first.

And besides all that... if they do reinstate the draft, they're going to have to let in a whole bunch of idiots and seriously re-think thier anti-drug stance, as in there will be no anti-drug stance..... like the good old days when we just killed innocient women and children from helicopters and the idiot sheeple clapped on as long as their astronomical death tolls were higher than ours were.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeph:
I'm sure Hero is as completely disgusted with Vice President Cheney as he is with former President Clinton, considering Cheney had five deferments and "other priorities" than going to war.

There is a big difference between a fella working his way through school for a few years and then having a pregnant wife. Clinton indicated that he "loathed" the military and fled to Oxford to sit out the war smoking weed and burning American flags.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But, baring some real state of emergency, and we really DO need a draft, it must be asked... Does a country deserve to remain free if its citizens refuse to voluntarily defend it ? The last thing we need is to force folks who don't want to sign up when there's no real pressing need.

Read a book called 'Invasion' a few years back about a hypothetical Chinease invasion of the US. In it the invasion is coming, people know its coming for years. In order to hold off the ten million chinease the country must mobilize every able bodied person, male and female, regardless of age and put them in uniform or in a factory.

Then John Ringo does something similar in 'A Hymm Before Battle' with an alien invasion.

Good stories both. Deal with different sides of the issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 6:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick: "Just thought I'd try my hand at the liberal's "Let's take everything to the worst possible extreme." game. You know, the "We'll ALL be wiretapped and tortured by the evil government if this law exists" shtick. It's really not that hard."

Slick really needs to assess his own hard-earned reputation. He's there supporting Bush at every turn. He's denied, minimized, excused and accepted every administration corruption and lie that only democrats have the guts to point out.

And what are those things? No WMD - true. The Iraq war as a failure - true. The president lying his way into a war in Iraq - true. Secret prisons - true. Torture - true. Disregarding habeas corpus - true. Politicizing intelligence, medicine and science - true. Warrantless spying on 10% of everyday Americans - true. Warrantless wiretaps and illegal spying on bank transactions - true. Massive databases with illegally collected information - true. Government propaganda broadcast as 'news' - true. Cronyism - true. Even bribes, theft, and pedophilia under the cover of government business - true.

And he misrepresents the arguments. Above is a prime example. No one said we'd ALL be ... whatever.

So now he's stuck with a personal reputation - he supports torture, comprehensive government spying on citizens, indefinitely keeping people in secret prisons, illegal wars, corruption, rigged elections ... Everything that makes the US more like some heinous 'communist' dictatorship and less like a democracy. You gotta wonder about Slick and what he stands for. And he's stuck with a personal record of unbroken lying and deceit. So you juust gotta question everything he says.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:31 AM

Hero, that's the biggest bullshit reason to give Cheney a pass that I've ever heard. How many soldiers went to war while they had pregnant wives? Do you think the army gave them consideration because of it?

And this is what the honorable Cheney said on the matter of Viet Nam. "I would have been happy to serve had I been called." When he was confronted with the fact that he had been, 6 times!, his weak reply was "I had other priorities."

How do you forget that you were called 6 times and each time wriggled out of it? That does a huge dishonor to the soldiers who were brave enough to actually go. Somebody took his fucking place, and he can't remember that?

This is what Bush said on why he chose the National Guard, staying out of Viet Nam.

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out in order to get a deferrment, nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning to fly air planes."

This is the man that just went to Viet Nam and told them they'd be better off if we had stayed to finish the fight there?

HERO, I could give a shit about Clinton's military service. I can respect somebody who stayed out of a war he didn't believe in.

But Bush and Cheney are at the height of hypocracy when it comes to this issue. As far as they're concerned, Viet Nam was a noble war that they think should have been fought, just so long as it wasn't fought by them.

Fucking disgusting leadership.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So now he's stuck with a personal reputation - he supports torture, comprehensive government spying on citizens, indefinitely keeping people in secret prisons, illegal wars, corruption, rigged elections ... Everything that makes the US more like some heinous 'communist' dictatorship and less like a democracy. You gotta wonder about Slick and what he stands for. And he's stuck with a personal record of unbroken lying and deceit. So you juust gotta question everything he says.

Your just like my puppy. She barks at her own reflection in the mirror. She also craps on the rug...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:25 AM

First its:

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
How do you forget that you were called 6 times and each time wriggled out of it? That does a huge dishonor to the soldiers who were brave enough to actually go. Somebody took his fucking place, and he can't remember that?

and then:

Quote:

HERO, I could give a shit about Clinton's military service. I can respect somebody who stayed out of a war he didn't believe in.

Well argued. I note for the record that Cheney filed for five deferments. Four were student deferments for his college days...and I note that he did two years in school with no deferment, six years total. The fifth one was a deferment for married men with children (or pregnant wives).

Also to answer your question about whether the army sends fathers to war. Yes. But in the 1960's which is the relevant period, the law allowed a draft deferment for expecting fathers. So the Army, prior to 1967, sent no drafted, expecting fathers to Vietnam...unless they didn't request the deferment.

Why is 1967 important? Because its the year Cheney was no longer elidgable for the draft because he was too old. I note for the record that the majority of drafted Vietnam vets were drafted AFTER 1967, so it seems his age precluded him more then any other factor.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Peck's solution is the draft. It will force the issue home and the apathy out. It will force citizens to TAKE responsibility for their government's choice to engage in something as devastating as war. Peck believes drafts will decrease the frequency and severity of wars.

On the whole, it seems that nations with the draft (USA during Vietnam)- even nations with universal military service (Israel, Soviet Union)have MORE wars rather than fewer. Citizens manage to insulate themselves from what's happening in the military, even if it's their own back yard. There was a photography/ diary exhibit in Israel about eight months ago put together by active duty troops, and it caused quite a stir among the folks "back home", who could not envision that "those things" were done by "their troops" - even tho the fighting was close to home and nearly everyone had been in the military.

In other words, the draft does not reduce militarism.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:02 AM