Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Jumping the gunFollow

#1 Jul 26 2010 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
I'm starting this thread before varrus gets to, because I'm sick of clicking threads that he initiated.

A call for a new military draft is currently in the House

Quote:
Jul 17,2010 - WASHINGTON - Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.

"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way.

"In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft," Congressman Rangel said.


The bill, which the Congressman first introduced in 2003 as the nation prepared for the invasion of Iraq, and offered again in 2004, 2006, and 2007, provides for:

• A national service obligation--either military or civilian--for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect
, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.


• Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security.

• Give the President the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

• Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.

• Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.

• Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.

• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.

BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME

Rangel said that he was not challenging President Obama's handling of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, conflicts with few options that the President had inherited from the previous Administration.

"I support the President's intentions to withdraw our troops, but I'd like to see it happen sooner. In my view, no additional tax dollars should be appropriated for any reason except to bring home our brave and exhausted young men and women. The loss of 5,500 lives and 38,000 wounded is enough."
The bolded portions are key. This was pretty clearly a dig at former president Bush, and continues to be a dig on the wars and Conservatives in general. And I suppose Obama as well, since he still hasn't ended them.

Regardless of the fact that this bill is a blatant message about the wars and the Conservative attitude towards them, several nutjob websites are touting this as a "slavery bill," notably Infowars, which is a righty conspiracy theorist site. Although the bill does, in fact, reinstate the (and even goes beyond the original) draft, it is clearly not meant to be passed.
#2 Jul 26 2010 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I think there are better ways to send a message then putting forward bills that aren't meant to be passed.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#3 Jul 26 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I think there are better ways to send a message then putting forward bills that aren't meant to be passed.
Specially one that is full of bs.

Like fighting in a useless 'war on terror' is the only way to contribute to the health, well-bing and stability of our country....pssh.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Jul 26 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Are we currently technically at war with any countries? the "war on terror" doesn't count since you can't wage a war on a concept or idea.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 Jul 26 2010 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
"Other peoples' children" will always fight the wars, Congressman. That's pretty much what the poor are there for, politically speaking: cheap labor, easy scapegoating, and cannon fodder.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Jul 26 2010 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Debalic wrote:
Are we currently technically at war with any countries? the "war on terror" doesn't count since you can't wage a war on a concept or idea.
That's why this portion was in there.

Quote:
Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect,
#7 Jul 26 2010 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Quote:
• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.


Andddddddddddd, I'm safe.

Edited, Jul 26th 2010 2:57pm by Kaelesh
#8 Jul 26 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not necessarily opposed to mandatory military/civil service but I agree that putting forth a bill knowing it'll never pass is a waste of everyone's time. Even if Rangel wanted it passed (which he doesn't), no one is going to vote to reinstate the draft right now. The only way a draft is getting passed is if (A) Chinese assault craft are actively unloading soldiers along the West Coast or (B) we have such a long uninterrupted period of peace that someone slips through a "Civil Service" bill and people actually think that joining the military would be a safe and easy way to get a couple years of high-tech training like in the commercials.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jul 26 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
Debalic wrote:
Are we currently technically at war with any countries?


Vietnam.

We never declared the war "over", we just stopped paying for it. It's like Milton in Offce Space but with bullets.
#10 Jul 26 2010 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I've always found it amusing (and predictable) that those who make this particular "draft is unfair to poor/minorities" argument during wartime never seem to argue for compulsory service during peacetime. They're more than happy with the disproportionate representation of poor and minority populations in the military when the primary end result is free education and training. So I take such things with a massive grain of salt.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jul 26 2010 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
I've always found it amusing (and predictable) that those who make this particular "draft is unfair to poor/minorities" argument during wartime never seem to argue for compulsory service during peacetime. They're more than happy with the disproportionate representation of poor and minority populations in the military when the primary end result is free education and training. So I take such things with a massive grain of salt.

Aside from the fact that no one in this thread has made any such argument, your post makes no sense. I think you need a negative somewhere.
#12 Jul 26 2010 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I sort of did, actually. The military is a sort of default way out of poverty for very poor people. That's all well and good in a volunteer army - not ideal, because they should have more options; but at least it's something. In times of war, and especially when there's a draft, the poor are vastly overrepresented among infantry troops.

It has always been that way, since the first draft during the Civil War, when a man of means could pay a poor man $100 to go fight in his place.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Jul 26 2010 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've always found it amusing (and predictable) that those who make this particular "draft is unfair to poor/minorities" argument during wartime never seem to argue for compulsory service during peacetime. They're more than happy with the disproportionate representation of poor and minority populations in the military when the primary end result is free education and training. So I take such things with a massive grain of salt.

Aside from the fact that no one in this thread has made any such argument, your post makes no sense. I think you need a negative somewhere.


What part doesn't make sense? I didn't say anyone in this thread had made such an argument. I said that those who introduce bills like the one Mr. Rangel is introducing do. What do you think he's talking about when he says "other people's children"? It's not like this is a new idea.


Do I actually have to explain to you what this is about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jul 26 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
I sort of did, actually. The military is a sort of default way out of poverty for very poor people. That's all well and good in a volunteer army - not ideal, because they should have more options; but at least it's something. In times of war, and especially when there's a draft, the poor are vastly overrepresented among infantry troops.


Yup. My point was that representatives of poor districts don't seem to have a problem with that when it's peacetime and the primary effect is to help members of their district find a way out of poverty. In fact, those same representatives often lead the charge to increase the benefits of military service in order to amplify that effect. More training, matching college tuition, pensions, etc.

But the same exact system is suddenly unfair when the military actually has to fight. Which seems kinda strange to me given that's the reason we paid them all that extra stuff anyway. You get those benefits *because* you might be called upon to risk your life. It seems incredibly selfish to take the money, take the training, take the education, but then complain when a war comes along. Of course, it's not the soldiers who do the complaining either. It's just the politicians who seem to think that people aren't smart enough to see through the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Jul 26 2010 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Sure, I agree with that. My comment specifically had to do with the draft.

Poor kids' parents usually don't have the influence to keep them out of the lottery, or to get them a cushy military job.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Jul 26 2010 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Are we currently technically at war with any countries?

Vietnam.

We never declared the war "over", we just stopped paying for it. It's like Milton in Offce Space but with bullets.

I thought that was Korea? And Vietnam was never declared a war at all?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Jul 26 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
War was never declared in either Korea or Vietnam, at least not by the U.S.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#18 Jul 26 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
They called Korea a "police action".
#19 Jul 26 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Poor kids' parents usually don't have the influence to keep them out of the lottery, or to get them a cushy military job.


I actually missed that part of your post. Absolutely! The draft isn't a very good solution to the issue. Historically, drafts have also been the hardest on the poor who can't come up with ways around it. From buying deferrals directly, to being able to pay to stay in school longer, or having the right pull to get assignments to less dangerous posts, those with money can avoid direct fighting if they want to.

At least with the all volunteer solution, the benefits gained are balanced with the risks taken. No one is forced to join. And the degree to which economic conditions increase the likelihood of one group joining more than another is in direct proportion to the degree to which the economic conditions are improved as a result of joining.

I just think it's incredibly simplistic to just look at the statistics during wartime and say: "OMG! Look how many more poor people are serving and dying! That's unfair!!!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Jul 26 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And we sent approximately half a million political advisors to Vietnam.

Creative accounting. Is there anything it can't do?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#21 Jul 26 2010 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
They called Korea a "police action".


I don't think that's relevant. The wording of the proposed bill allows for a draft for such actions, whether they are declared wars or not. Also, the war powers act changes the way we declare war anyway, so it's largely a moot semantic issue at this point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jul 26 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Assuming that Rangel is forced out to help ease the suffering of fellow Dems, this strikes me as a lame duck attack that will just be used as fodder for other House races: "Congressman X voted against supporting our troops and the war he voted for in 2003!" etc. Even if he's not forced out (he's from Harlem, which might as well mean that he's running unopposed), he'll never regain the Chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee anyways, so better to burn out than fade away, I guess.

Kind of sleazy and underhanded, but that's the rule of the road, and it's not like the GOP won't use Rangel's accusations of ethics violations to fire back at Dems in general rather than Rangel in particular.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#23 Jul 26 2010 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
They called Korea a "police action".


I don't think that's relevant. The wording of the proposed bill allows for a draft for such actions, whether they are declared wars or not. Also, the war powers act changes the way we declare war anyway, so it's largely a moot semantic issue at this point.


It's relevant to the conversation that Deb, Sam and myself were having.

And no, it's not moot. Have you even read the damn thing?

Quote:
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.


So Congress declares war, or a police action, or the boys come home.
#24 Jul 26 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
And no, it's not moot. Have you even read the damn thing?

Quote:
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.


So Congress declares war, or a police action, or the boys come home.


Yes. Which means a "police action" or whatever you want to call it, qualifies for a draft under the proposed bill. So all the speculation about whether Korea or Vietnam were wars or not is absolutely moot in this context. Both, had they happened under todays laws would qualify under the War Powers Act as long as Congress continued to fund them (which they did back then). And both, if this proposed bill were to pass, would qualify for activation of the draft.

Whether we call it a war or a police action doesn't matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jul 26 2010 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
I'm not even sure why you chose to pick the argument with me considering the conversation Deb, Sam and myself were having had NOTHING to do with this Bill. It was a semi-on topic derail.

So hey, go *** your mothers mouth.
#26 Jul 26 2010 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
You know what would end the US presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere the quickest?

A draft.

If people had to 'support the troops' by putting on a uniform, picking up a gun and becoming one of them, the 'fight them there so we don't have to fight them here'crowd who currently inhabit malls, sports bars, lounges and keyboards all over the US would pretty quickly realise that someone in charge of foreign policy is taking the ****.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 279 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (279)