Senior Democrat to reintroduce legislaion to reinstate the military draft

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Awww shucks, and now you're even laughing at my sarcastic jokes! Gosh, Marc, it's the beginning something beautiful here.

I wouldnt get to carried away, I am helping wax Carol and Im gettin pissed! What a pain in the a$$.

As much as I don't like Michael Moore, it reminds me of a scene from Fahrenheit 911 where he walks up to senators and congressmen with military-age kids and asks them to sign up their sons and daughters to fight. Of course they all refused...

quite simply a parent can't sign their kids up. the kid does that, the parent just consents.

What is this? Starship Troopers?

are you being bitten on the ####### by civic virtue?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Awww shucks, and now you're even laughing at my sarcastic jokes! Gosh, Marc, it's the beginning something beautiful here.

I wouldnt get to carried away, I am helping wax Carol and Im gettin pissed! What a pain in the a$$.

As much as I don't like Michael Moore, it reminds me of a scene from Fahrenheit 911 where he walks up to senators and congressmen with military-age kids and asks them to sign up their sons and daughters to fight. Of course they all refused...

quite simply a parent can't sign their kids up. the kid does that, the parent just consents.

What is this? Starship Troopers?

are you being bitten on the ####### by civic virtue?

No just the un-democratic - "its USA so you have no opinion". If the policy involves me, I have an opinion.

[DeadPoolX 9]

No just the un-democratic - "its USA so you have no opinion". If the policy involves me, I have an opinion.

I agree with you. Tell that to Rangel, not us.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm glad I already served. The military will benefit from the wave of immigrants (legal and illegal). By filing AOS you have signed up for the Selective Service System. Thanks in advance.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Does anyone truly think this would pass though? I mean, let's be honest -- even if it did work it's way through the House, it'd still have to go through the Senate and them be approved by the President. I don't know of any President (Bush or anyone else) who would want to reinstate the draft on their watch. It'd make their popularity figures plummet, and that's what history would remember them for as well.

Let's look at everything in perspective:

• This proposed idea would need to pass through the House and Senate and then be approved by the President.
  
• No President would realistically want to approve this; it'd make them more unpopular than Bush is right now by a longshot.
  
• Republicans will vote against it, most likely on principle (since a Democrat came up with it) and have children or grandchildren.
  
• Democrats will vote against it since many of them have children or grandchildren and want to pull out of Iraq, not send more troops into it.
  

So I don't see this plan going ahead. I think Rangel is just trying to work the American public up into a frenzy by suggesting the draft, hoping that will gain support for a full-scale withdrawal of forces from Iraq.

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

I think everyone is missing Rangel's point here. This bill is not about the size of the military and the need for troops. It's about the socio-economics numbers of who serves in this all-volunteer army. Rangle is arguing if the US is anxious to inject itself in unilateral, pre-emptive strike policies, then everyone should take responsiility.

Regarding the exemption for women- it's one of those arcane discrimination laws, that argues it's okay to discriminate because it "protects" the women.

I have mixed feelings about mandatory serivce. when I was young I would argue my individual civil liberties not to be compelled to serve. Now I can see how the benefits of mandatory community service might actually improve us as a nation. Rangle's bill offers the option of non-military service which would be vital for me. But I am still confused on the legal civil liberties issue.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I fail to see how Rangel's bill, which could draft any man or woman ages 18 to 42, would improve our nation. Could you imagine being already established in your career in your 30's or early 40's and suddenly being told by the government that you're being conscripted into military service? That would not only completely shake up your family, it'd destroy your career!

If anything, such a bill would damage the economy. Take too many men and women out of the workforce and ship them overseas, who's going to perform the jobs at home?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

I fail to see how Rangel's bill, which could draft any man or woman ages 18 to 42, would improve our nation. Could you imagine being already established in your career in your 30's or early 40's and suddenly being told by the government that you're being conscripted into military service? That would not only completely shake up your family, it'd destroy your career!

If anything, such a bill would damage the economy. Take too many men and women out of the workforce and ship them overseas, who's going to perform the jobs at home?

maybe it's a precursor to amnesty for all the illegals here........

[mybackpages 0]

I fail to see how Rangel's bill, which could draft any man or woman ages 18 to 42, would improve our nation. Could you imagine being already established in your career in your 30's or early 40's and suddenly being told by the government that you're being conscripted into military service? That would not only completely shake up your family, it'd destroy your career!

If anything, such a bill would damage the economy. Take too many men and women out of the workforce and ship them overseas, who's going to perform the jobs at home?

It's not just military service, but community service and you can do this in your own hometown. And even if it were to pass Congress, I am sure there would be date it becomes effective and those above a certain age that that date would be exempt (or grandfathered out).

[DeadPoolX 9]

It's not just military service, but community service and you can do this in your own hometown. And even if it were to pass Congress, I am sure there would be date it becomes effective and those above a certain age that that date would be exempt (or grandfathered out).

Community service is great if you're in high school or college and looking to do something as club or group (and want to pad your transcript/resume), but it'd be a terrible waste of time if you have a full-time career going on.

For instance, I'm in training to be a psychologist. We don't have 9-5 workhours. We work whenever our patients pretty much need us (within reason; we don't work at 3AM for instance), so if I'm working say...six days a week, and I take one day a week off to actually relax and catch up with my family, am I supposed to use that one day for community service?

What if community service is demanded more than one day a week? How am I supposed to deal with that? I'd probably be working close to, if not a complete, 12-hour day. There's a lot more to being a psychologist than just seeing and talking with the patients. Am I suppose to take fewer patients and thereby reduce my income because the government demands I do community service?

In addition, I don't see how community service would help solve the "plight" of all the so-called "poor kids" going into the military. It seems like this would be, more or less, a nationwide punishment on people ages 18 to 42, for the government waging the Iraq War. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that and figure out how that makes any sense or solves anything in any fashion, whatsoever.

[mybackpages 0]

It's not just military service, but community service and you can do this in your own hometown. And even if it were to pass Congress, I am sure there would be date it becomes effective and those above a certain age that that date would be exempt (or grandfathered out).

Community service is great if you're in high school or college and looking to do something as club or group (and want to pad your transcript/resume), but it'd be a terrible waste of time if you have a full-time career going on.

For instance, I'm in training to be a psychologist. We don't have 9-5 workhours. We work whenever our patients pretty much need us (within reason; we don't work at 3AM for instance), so if I'm working say...six days a week, and I take one day a week off to actually relax and catch up with my family, am I supposed to use that one day for community service?

What if community service is demanded more than one day a week? How am I supposed to deal with that? I'd probably be working close to, if not a complete, 12-hour day. There's a lot more to being a psychologist than just seeing and talking with the patients. Am I suppose to take fewer patients and thereby reduce my income because the government demands I do community service?

In addition, I don't see how community service would help solve the "plight" of all the so-called "poor kids" going into the military. It seems like this would be, more or less, a nationwide punishment on people ages 18 to 42, for the government waging the Iraq War. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that and figure out how that makes any sense or solves anything in any fashion, whatsoever.

We are talking about service to your country- in the military or domestic form. How does required civic engagement not benefit society? The question for me is only the legality in regards to individual liberties.

Maybe I wasn;t clear in my explaination of how a grandfather clause would work. Let's say the the law goes into effect on Jan 1 2008. It will require all 18-42 yr olds to serve 2 years of service. It could mean that you choose which two years to do service between those years. There could also be a clause stating that it only applies to those turning 18 as of Jan1 2008 and all future citizens.

[peezey 0]

I am opposed to a draft for anyone; however, if there is going to be a draft (and I don't believe there will be -- I think this is just a stunt pulled by Rangel in order to get people to say, "Look! The government is going to draft us! Let's stop this conflict and pull out immediately!"), it should be equal and include both men and women. I never understood the antiquated notion of women not signing up for selective service.

I agree it's not going to happen, but I don't agree with whyyou think he's doing this. It is purely political, but it's to make very clear the US military is not fairly proportioned across all socio-economic groups, and to call attention to the fact the decision makers for war do not have children or family members in said war (until 2 weeks ago, Webb's son is in Iraq).

[peezey 0]

I fail to see how Rangel's bill, which could draft any man or woman ages 18 to 42, would improve our nation. Could you imagine being already established in your career in your 30's or early 40's and suddenly being told by the government that you're being conscripted into military service? That would not only completely shake up your family, it'd destroy your career!

If anything, such a bill would damage the economy. Take too many men and women out of the workforce and ship them overseas, who's going to perform the jobs at home?

It's not just military service, but community service and you can do this in your own hometown. And even if it were to pass Congress, I am sure there would be date it becomes effective and those above a certain age that that date would be exempt (or grandfathered out).

"Draft" is just the hot-button word here. What this bill truly describes is mandatory federal civic duty, be it military or community work. On the face, I do not see a problem with it (and I am decidedly anti-war), but as MBP suggested earlier, it's not necessarily an easy, hard and fast decision to come to to completely support it based on our history in this nation with conscription, and personal fears, of course. Not to mention the point re: drinking age is 21 while military age is 18 9as an example of preposterousness of our moral legislation).

Illegal immigrants can enlist currently and in a short time can adjust their status and obtain a green card. This was discussed on NPR yesterday with a military lawyer suggesting a recruiting station should be set up on the Mexican side of the border.

[BJZags 17]

Illegal immigrants can enlist currently and in a short time can adjust their status and obtain a green card. This was discussed on NPR yesterday with a military lawyer suggesting a recruiting station should be set up on the Mexican side of the border.

Seems to me this would serve two goals. Validate the status of "illegal immigrants" while also giving the army a corps of dedicated soldiers. If two-years honorable service gives you a green card, I bet many would take this option.

[kaydee457 13]

This is an issue to be addressed by U.S. citizens.

Excuse me, but that is the biggest load of #######. It is an issue to be addressed by USC and LPR's. We may not be able to vote. But we can damm well have our say and that includes erekose.

This is really getting old kaydee and insulting to all of us that are LPR's.

I'm sorry that you're "insulted". I don't see you arguing for the U.S. Citizens that are of the age 18 to 20 that also have no "say" because they're too young to vote.

Seems to be exactly the same situation that a LPR would be in.

Now, sorry this is "getting old". What's really getting old is/are immigrants that come here voluntarily but don't want to assimilate.

We have a representative government. If you're old enough, and you're a citizen then you have a voice, and possibly a choice.

If you're not in those catagories then nobody's going to hold you here. As much as I like you, I personally don't see this a topic that is "up for discussion" for immigrants.

You do, after all have a choice..........

That's the situation here the the good ole' U.S. of A..........