Senior Democrat to reintroduce legislaion to reinstate the military draft

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

[...]

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion ... the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

[...]

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....=rss&rpc=22

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

oh joy here we go again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess that should please the warmongers.

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

I guess that should please the warmongers.

the dems are raising the topic, so are they the warmongers?

[Jenn! 918]

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

This sounds good. One of my biggest fears is for my husband to be drafted.

[peejay 327]

I was an 18 year old high school senior with a 1-H classification when the draft ended. Most of us were very relieved at the time.

My dad was not so fortunate and got conscripted right after graduating high school in 1943. He had very little choice and accepted his fate.

I can see this would be wildly unpopular for under 25 years old males and their parents. At this point I don't think the Dems would dare push this one through.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess that should please the warmongers.

the dems are raising the topic, so are they the warmongers?

This guy is certainly is - if he thinks that there is a need for more unilateral military action against other countries in the middle east.

[Alex+R 0]

We can't do all the stuff they want us to do without forcing us all to go kill ourselves. I hear this draft will include women.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Alex+R

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

This sounds good. One of my biggest fears is for my husband to be drafted.

Indeed. Isn't that one of the reasons that Vietnam was so publicly unpopular? because you were essentially forced to go.

[BJZags 17]

Indeed. Isn't that one of the reasons that Vietnam was so publicly unpopular? because you were essentially forced to go.

Forced to go? Isn't that the very essence of the draft, you don't have a choice, it's your lot in life because you were born in the country that has it. With how the military has been currently used as an "arm" of America's foreign policy, I think it might be a good idea, since all American citizens have a duty to do what our govnment says they should. If our elected officials say that our foreign policy requires extended meddling in other countries affairs, then all citizens should be required to shoulder this load since we don't have enough forces to currently do this meddling AND defend our borders. If the military were only used as a means of defending our borders and the constitution of the United States, blah, blah, blah, then an all-volunteer army would probably be sufficient. It all hinges upon how our miltary is used.

[Jenn! 918]

Indeed. Isn't that one of the reasons that Vietnam was so publicly unpopular? because you were essentially forced to go.

Forced to go? Isn't that the very essence of the draft, you don't have a choice, it's your lot in life because you were born in the country that has it. With how the military has been currently used as an "arm" of America's foreign policy, I think it might be a good idea, since all American citizens have a duty to do what our govnment says they should. If our elected officials say that our foreign policy requires extended meddling in other countries affairs, then all citizens should be required to shoulder this load since we don't have enough forces to currently do this meddling AND defend our borders. If the military were only used as a means of defending our borders and the constitution of the United States, blah, blah, blah, then an all-volunteer army would probably be sufficient. It all hinges upon how our miltary is used.

Just wanted to mention that it's not only citizens. Permanent residents are also eligible for the draft.

[peejay 327]

Here is another article with more detail:

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 21 minutes ago

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.

Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

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

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 — now about 16 million — from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_.../military_draft

[aussiewench 9]

I think it might be a good idea, since all American citizens have a duty to do what our govnment says they should. If our elected officials say that our foreign policy requires extended meddling in other countries affairs, then all citizens should be required to shoulder this load since we don't have enough forces to currently do this meddling AND defend our borders.

Do you even have any idea how that sounds and the implications of it. One has a duty to the country, not the government.

Edited cause I can't spell idea

Edited November 19, 2006 by aussiewench

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Many countries require it's citizens to serve a couple of years in the military.

* 7.1 Austria

* 7.2 Belarus

* 7.3 Bermuda

* 7.4 Brazil

* 7.5 Bulgaria

* 7.6 Chile

* 7.7 China (PRC)

* 7.8 Croatia

* 7.9 Cyprus

* 7.10 Denmark

* 7.11 Egypt

* 7.12 Eritrea

* 7.13 Finland

* 7.14 Germany

* 7.15 Greece

* 7.16 Iran

* 7.17 Israel

* 7.18 Korea, South

* 7.19 Lebanon

* 7.20 Malaysia

* 7.21 Mexico

* 7.22 Norway

* 7.23 Poland

* 7.24 Russia

* 7.25 Serbia and Montenegro

* 7.26 Singapore

* 7.27 Sweden

* 7.28 Switzerland

* 7.29 Taiwan (ROC)

* 7.30 Turkey

* 7.31 Ukraine

* 7.32 Venezuela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

[BJZags 17]

Do you even have any day how that sounds and the implications of it. One has a duty to the country, not the government.

Really? Our duty is to our country? And who exactly articulates what a citizen's duty to a country is but it's government. You will notice that I specifically mentioned "ELECTED officials" as defining that duty, so theoretically, this so-called duty is all our own doing. I'm not saying I like how this sounds, just trying to describe the slippery-slope the use of the military in general creates. Perhaps the purpose of proposing this legislation is only trying to scare the bejesus out of us, and force us to take drastic action, i.e. get the heck out of Iraq?