Looks like Rangel is not used to having this much air time and is saying all the wrong things as of late.

Link to Story

Not only did I see the story but saw him say it on the morning talk shows this morning.

His belief is that if we had the draft we would not be involved in as many conflicts because congress critters would be less likely to commit to action if there was a possibility that their child or relative may have to serve.

Repeated polls have shown that about 7 in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft.

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

I watched this episode this morning and thought that Rangel presented himself and his views very well. He explained his thinking about the draft and I think he laid out his logic in a way that makes sense.


1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

No. I don;t think the draft is a great idea but something should have been done a long time ago in terms of taking better care of our armed forces and keeping them from being overburdened and keeping out forces capable of responding to threats.

General Abazeid (sp?) was also revealed in this show to have testified that there are not sufficient troops on the ground in Iraq to do more than train and support the Iraqi army and this keeps our troops from being able to effectively attack the insurgency. And that McCain is describing our policy in IRaq as playing wack-amole, and furthermore that he and SC Senator (also on the show this morning) Lindsey Graham argue that more troops are necessary to effectively carry out our mission in Iraq. This would be revealed in polls to be equally distasteful to the American public.



2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

If the draft gets passed it would be bad politically. But that would not necessarily mean it would be bad policy.

Americans have gotten used to win-win political solutions that are not so good for our country. I call this approach don't tax and spend. The present effort of trying to spare the burden of war at home while we are mobilized for war abroad is one of those things. Rangel feels that it is best if we "pay as we go " on this type of activity. That Representatives and Senators would have to have the immediate pressure of a public having all eligible citizens being exposed to being drafted into conflicts would make our representatives more thoughtful on the path to war.

This being said I think the Democratic Party would be hurt if they united behind Rangel and his legislation proposal.

Also there may be a political advantage in this as it implies that the Republican leadership has been guilty of chicken hawking and sending our servicemen to war without sending their families into the conflict. But hopefully this proposal does not devolve into political name calling and sniping.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

No I don;t think this is short-sighted. I think Rangel believes that this is best for the United States and that although it might make it more difficult on the front end in getting involved in conflicts, it might have the possible effects or really not engaging us in war until alternatives have really been exhausted.

This would not be as restrictive as the pre-WWII Neutrality Acts were, nothing would keep Congress from declaring war.

Charlie Rangel...His name alone is enough to anger me. Charlie Rangel is wrong on this issue for several reasons, on to the questions:

No. A draft is illegal, violating several parts of the Constitution: Emphasis mine. I know Charlie Rangel holds the Constitution in contempt, but I thought that he, the crusader for the Black community would be a little less likely to propose legislation that violates the Constitutional Amendment banning slavary. Who knew?

Legal issues aside, Rangel has one particularly serious logical flaw in his argument: Most Americans don't support the war, Charles. Most Americans are very anti-Iraq right now including, ironically, 18-24 year olds...The same people Charlie wants to have fighting it. Link


Sound strategy Charles.

Only if they're stupid enough to say, with one clear voice, "We stand with Charlie Rangel and the draft."

No, this is Charlie Rangel making political points in an attempt to be seen as an egalitarian crusader for the poor minorities of the country. This isn't going to happen and Rangel is only serious about it as long as he knows it will never happen.

CP

Conservpat, the USSC has historically struck down your argument. Thus far, the final word from the ultimate authorities is that the selective service is not unConstitutional. If you expect the state to protect you, you in turn, might be expected to also help provide that protection should the need arise.

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

I am not in favor of this. Conscripts would have a deleterious effect. What is needed are specific skill sets that require an enormous amount of training and education, not a bunch of resentful warm bodies that are likely to get more of our soldiers killed than help.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

I don't think it will hurt them. Rangel has been consistent on this issue. He also proposed the Universal National Service Act back in 2003, which was used as a propaganda tool at the time (by some). It's actually kind of refreshing to see a politician stick to his convictions when they might potentially have an adverse impact rather than an advantageous one. But per the question here, Democrats (apart from Rangel) have not supported this measure in the past and will not now.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

Not necessarily. Realistically, there is no way this would pass. I think Rangle is simply attempting to bring the issue to the public's attention. It is a fact that our military is looking less and less like the rest of America. The draft would even out that disparity. AN article that rings true to me.

Well, I think that only folks that support this war should have to be drafted- that would be the best solution of all, and of course- THIER children. But that is just a pipe dream

But the nation would not stand a draft, ESPECIALLY with such an unpopular war.

But I notice you guys harping on Rangel here- why not Lindsay Graham as well? do I smell a bit of partisonism here?

And- quick edit- I absolutely think that congressman and presidents SHOULD have some sanction for thier wish to go to war. I have read many fiction books about this subject- how about, for a war to be done where we are not directly threatened on our own soil, that has an action lasting over 60 days, we execute thier family? make that decision oh, a bit harder on the lawmaker that supports a foriegn war? make darn sure they are sacrificing THIER families for a good cause I believe? There is simply not enough consequences to our elected federal officials in our post-Korean war behaviors.

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

Loaded question without the full context(i.e.-question #3 isn't it?



It isn't short sighted, it's a crafty response in a way. It's easy for people to be for a conflict when it's other people they don't know who are involved. A potential draft to gear up for a war would make a lot of people reconsider their views, or at consider a war on a deeper level than simply slapping cute little yellow stickers on their cars or flying the flag out of their car.

It's not a loaded question. Either you favor it or you don't, unless you are afraid to voice your opinion on the subject.

I am opposed to a draft for the same reasons Mrs. Pigpen believes. We need well trained volunteers, not just warm scared bodies.

I'd love to here "the state" make the argument that the protection of the state is contingent upon the Iraq war...I could use a laugh.

Whether or not the USSC is willing to call invoulentary servitude invoulentary servitude does not alter the fact that the draft is, by definition, invoulentary servitude.

CP

I myself wouldn't use the Iraq argument as necessary for the state, but I think one could use the fact that our involvement in Iraq has taxed our forces to an unsafe level (for national security) to promote that argument. I'm not making that one either, just sayin'.

Here is the USSC's ruling:

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.
Absolutely not. As noted by others, it is involuntary servitude and it doesn't provide the best soldiers but rather people who don't want to be there.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?
Honestly, this is of little interest to me. The effect on people on the ground interests me far more.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?
I think if that's the idea it is doomed to failure for one obvious reason as hinted at in the OP:
Because we all know that the children and relatives of politicians served in Vietnam when we did have a draft, right?

Fair enough Mrs. Pigpen. I would however, like to say that this: Is a pitiful attempt to make this: Mean something other than this: The fact is that the law states that invoulentary servitude is illegal in the United States. If the lawmakers meant "no invoulentary servitude other than a draft" then that is what they would have/should have written. As the law is written a draft is illegal.

CP

CP you are citing an amendment as unconstitutional that was the result of winning a war that allowed for the 13th Amendment and the war itself used conscription to bring citizens into the war.

I side with the Supreme Court on this one.

And Sleeper, sorry you got attributed with my quote in an earlier post.

I disagree with the draft for the morale purposes stated above and the disasterous effects that the Vietnam war and draft had on our military in the 1970s. However, I feel the the guard especially, the IRR (read those contracts carefully you recruits), and reserves to a degree have been abused tremendously to keep the personnel levels up for this war. We should make a concerted effort to recruit people into our military. Short of that a draft is probably better than abusing the people we are using right now. I read an article today that stated that 1 in 6 who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSS (Post Traumatic Stree Syndrom). I hope that the "soft on defense" Democrats who have been accused of not supporting our troops, feel pressured to counter that perception by passing a benefits package for vets of these conflicts. That's gotta be better than energy company subsidies without environmental strings or roads to nowhere in Stevensland.

I hear you Eeyore, but that doesn't alter the language of the law. Would you agree that the language of the law would prohibit a draft? What the USSC did in that ruling was look at the circumstances under which the law was made instead of actually interpreting it textually.

CP

I think it would be a positive step to us getting out of the war in Iraq. Soon as being patriotic meant actually having to go and be some bullet/ied magnet that flag waving would probably become flag burning really.

Not to say its just a farce, just most all of it I think was nothing more then react to extinction at large vs. the idea of being super patriotic and just or whatever. I mean fear is what sold the war more then anything.

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

No, for the same reasons others have said about needing people that are well trained and wanting to be in the military.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

I don't think so, I didn't see the same show it appears as others did with Rangel cause I saw him on CSpan this morning and he did present his case very well there also, but still I would oppose it and think the rest of congress would especially now because the public wouldn't go for it.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

Not a short sighted attemp but a much more pragmatic approach to the public and the congress when it comes to wars where others are called to sacrifice while everyone else goes on with their lives like nothing happens unless it effects you directly. In this way I think he is trying to do like Mrs. Pigpen has suggested to bring to the America's attention that the military is about to be broken or is already broken one could argue either way, but he is trying to wake people up I suspect.







1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

No, for the same reasons others have said about needing people that are well trained and wanting to be in the military.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

I don't think so, I didn't see the same show it appears as others did with Rangel cause I saw him on CSpan this morning and he did present his case very well there also, but still I would oppose it and think the rest of congress would especially now because the public wouldn't go for it.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

Not a short sighted attemp but a much more pragmatic approach to the public and the congress when it comes to wars where others are called to sacrifice while everyone else goes on with their lives like nothing happens unless it effects you directly. In this way I think he is trying to do like Mrs. Pigpen has suggested to bring to the America's attention that the military is about to be broken or is already broken one could argue either way, but he is trying to wake people up I suspect.



It's funny that you say this Eeyore cause the MSM and the Republicans use this rhetoric like its true, but its not if you follow the voting patterns over the last five years thanks to a non profit organization called Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America we actually can see that the Democrats actually are more supportive of the troops. Vets Group Proves GOP Does Not Support Troops

Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Grades for Congress

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

There's actually a side of me that would love for the youth of America to experience what it feels like to have the draft hanging over their heads as they go through high school. For me it started in the eighth grade as my older brothers dealt with the choices of joining, letting the draft get them, or figuring some way out of the whole thing. Both ended up joining. I got a high lottery number (an especially crappy way to do things), a student deferment, and then the war ended (for all practical purposes) in 1973. Left college in 1975, and the draft wasn't an issue.

What is that, misery likes company?

Anyway, I suggest listening to Alice's Restaurant this Thanksgiving. It might give a sense as to what this was like.

But when the actual purpose for bringing back the draft is considered, it makes a little bit of sense. The politicians so eager to send our young soldiers into harm's way don't have flesh in the decision, therefore it is much easier to be hawkish about war. However, and this has been true about every draft, those children who come from homes of influence get out of the draft one way or another.

So no, I'm not in favor of this. I am more in favor of a law that requires the children of politicians who push for war to serve in that war, and as combat troops. I am not sure if such a law is possible.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

No. This law is DOA, but the point is being made. Republican leadership has been too cavalier about war. Democratic leadership, especially the combat veteran leadership, will be more careful.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

No. The attempt is to establish a message, not a law. The point is to promote Democratic leadership, and Democratic leadership that has tasted war. Note that many of the new Demos running are Iraq war veterans. Note also that many of the established Demo candidates are combat veterans from other wars.

I think this whole thing is an attempt to stop swift-boater styled smear campaigns before the 2008 election season. Don't know if it'll work and can see it backfiring, where the Republicans point their fingers at Demos and chant, "They Love The Draft."

But then the electorate might be wising up. We'll see how this plays out.

1. Do you favor a re-instatement of the draft? Why or why not.

I don't think a re-instatement of the draft but do feel that a mandatory military service for a year would do great for many of the youths today. Discipline is becoming a thing of the past and there is nothing better than a little boot camp to get a youth's mind back on track.

2. Will this course of action from Rangel hurt the Democrats in 2008 if he proceeds with this legislation as he said he would?

It all depends who backs the bill. If the bill passes, I can almost guarantee a Republican victory in 08.

3. Do you think this is a short sighted attempt at preventing conflicts in the future, such as against Iran or North Korea?

I don't think it would be a deterrent what so ever. These are conflicts, unfortunately, that are inevitable.

Well, since I'm the new guy on the block...and learning....somebody tell me if I screw up.

Yes, I believe we should have a draft...and here's why. I'm a Vietnam Vet, I served with people who volunteered and with those that were drafted. There was no difference in the training(Ft.Polk, La). No was there an attitude about the draft then? Sure there was, me and a lot of others(for various reasons)couldn't do like Bush and others did...didn't have an influential daddy to get us into the Guard, or the grades to get into college. So we went, and we learned to live with what we did. Now, remember, I was in before the lottery system, so that wasn't a concern. Was it fair? Depends on whether you got drafted or not. But....if they start it again, then the only deferment should be for those phyiscally or mentally challenaged. Everybody else should be eligable to go....from Bush's kids on down. Will that happen....no.

Will it hurt the Democrats? There's no telling. The GOP, IMO, have shot themselves one time to many in the foot, but you have to remember that by passing this, they are sending the message that all future wars will involve everyone's kids. But I don't think it's going to hurt...or help....them. The key to this is they have to show signs of doing something.

The only thing that will curtail conflicts in the future, is to keep fools out of the Oval Office. I've always believed that war's don't prove who's right....only who's left. People like Bush will always fight to the last drop of someone elses blood, for what they believe in. And that's sad. But growing up during the Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis, and ducking under my desk for drills, should me that we had more missles, crazier people and we are still here. So maybe somebody needs to remember that. If it were to happen, it won't be troops fighting...just rockets.

Oh, and being from Mississippi, you can guess how I feel about Rangel.




SNAKE