Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

[Norsemaiden]

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rangel told Bob Schieffer, “You bet your life,” that he is serious about calling for the draft. “I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session,” he said. Rangel has submitted two versions of a draft bill over the past three and a half years. One would apply to men and women aged 18 to 26, and the other to men and women aged 18 to 42.

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

The war with the "axis of evil" requires more US troops than are available. If the Republicans stated this and then attempted to pass a bill to reintroduce the draft, there would be huge oppostion.

Clever then, that they get a Democrat to suggest it, making out that really war will be so much less likely to happen if there is a draft. History does not bear that idea out! So it is quite possible the draft bill will pass this time.
Americans: will you refuse to fight?

 

[judas69]

That's all we need, illegal American immigrants coming Canada.

 

[OldScratch]

I said this on another UM forum - it is actually comical that Rangel would suggest such a thing(again). His constituency is one of the more vocally antiwar throughout this protracted Iraqi adventure. All polls concur that folks in urban areas are disproportionally against the Iraq war and recruitment has suffered already in those areas...won't they love 'ol Charlie if they are then drafted despite their loud opposition to the whole mess already? (Draft riots on a mass-scale not seen in NYC since 1863 come quicky to mind)
It would honestly be interesting to see such a thing unfold in America though. The halcyon days of joyful pissing and moaning about or cheerleading the war from the sidelines would swiftly be replaced by genuine hysteria, I can guarantee that.

Philosophically, I would personally have no desire to join this particular fray, which I don't believe to be in my country's best interests at all, I can say that - and to be honest a serious leg injury/arthritis issue would almost certainly preclude me from service anyway...that and I'm nearly 38 already!(a little long in the tooth for combat:Smug: )
I cannot imagine such a Bill passing, especially given the already bitterly divided opinions about this now undeniably unpopular war. But it sure might be entertaining to watch the mania and social chaos that would ensue if there were even a possibility it might!

 

[Norsemaiden]

I said this on another UM forum - it is actually comical that Rangel would suggest such a thing(again). His constituency is one of the more vocally antiwar throughout this protracted Iraqi adventure. All polls concur that folks in urban areas are disproportionally against the Iraq war and recruitment has suffered already in those areas...won't they love 'ol Charlie if they are then drafted despite their loud opposition to the whole mess already? (Draft riots on a mass-scale not seen in NYC since 1863 come quicky to mind)
It would honestly be interesting to see such a thing unfold in America though. The halcyon days of joyful pissing and moaning about or cheerleading the war from the sidelines would swiftly be replaced by genuine hysteria, I can guarantee that.

Philosophically, I would personally have no desire to join this particular fray, which I don't believe to be in my country's best interests at all, I can say that - and to be honest a serious leg injury/arthritis issue would almost certainly preclude me from service anyway...that and I'm nearly 38 already!(a little long in the tooth for combat:Smug: )
I cannot imagine such a Bill passing, especially given the already bitterly divided opinions about this now undeniably unpopular war. But it sure might be entertaining to watch the mania and social chaos that would ensue if there were even a possibility it might!

Thus, Rangel’s call for a reinstatement of the draft is based on two inter-related propositions: 1) that the existence of the draft would make war less likely because public opposition would be more easily aroused; and 2) that congressmen would be less likely to support a war that might affect the lives of their own children.

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

Rangel is trying to get those who are against the war to support the draft. This is really bizarre.

 

[speed]

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

Rangel is trying to get those who are against the war to support the draft. This is really bizarre.

There's an excellent reason behind his thinking. If regular american boys and girls were drafted to go to Iraq-- boys and girls who didnt want to go-- then opposition for wars would increase. Its no secret that after Vietnam the first thing the Pentagon wanted to do was to go from a conscript army to a professional volunteer one. One doesnt feel as bad for the volunteers who enlisted knowing full well they could be sent to any war, than one would feel for the kid down the street who is suddenly drafted and stuck in Iraq in a war he doesnt believe in.

Thus, the idea is a conscript army would force America to think twice about using military force.

But it seems our presidents foreign policy of hubris, incompetance, and ignorance, has made us such a paper tiger, most countries no longer fear our military power. So, it may all be a moot point in the near future anyway (well, once we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan).

 

[Norsemaiden]

There's an excellent reason behind his thinking. If regular american boys and girls were drafted to go to Iraq-- boys and girls who didnt want to go-- then opposition for wars would increase. Its no secret that after Vietnam the first thing the Pentagon wanted to do was to go from a conscript army to a professional volunteer one. One doesnt feel as bad for the volunteers who enlisted knowing full well they could be sent to any war, than one would feel for the kid down the street who is suddenly drafted and stuck in Iraq in a war he doesnt believe in.

Thus, the idea is a conscript army would force America to think twice about using military force.

But it seems our presidents foreign policy of hubris, incompetance, and ignorance, has made us such a paper tiger, most countries no longer fear our military power. So, it may all be a moot point in the near future anyway (well, once we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan).

Don't you think Iran is next? It seems likely that there will be war with Iran, and that American troops will be stretched, so they will find it useful to have reinstated the draft. There are ways of making the public agree to war. Make them feel some pain in the US and anger. The speculated method for this is a dirty nuclear bomb or more detonated in the US, supposedly by the Iranians. Would that do the trick?

They have already tried sending a US aircraft carrier to Iran's shores, which was to serve both as a preparatory step for US airstrikes but yet also an attempt to tempt the Iranians to sink it. This tragedy may have potentially been sufficient to unite Americans to agree to a war against Iran, but something more bloodthirsty is going to be required once the draft is taken into account.
Or would the government never do such a thing to "their own" people? How much concern for the American people does the government really have?

 

[speed]

Don't you think Iran is next? It seems likely that there will be war with Iran, and that American troops will be stretched, so they will find it useful to have reinstated the draft. There are ways of making the public agree to war. Make them feel some pain in the US and anger. The speculated method for this is a dirty nuclear bomb or more detonated in the US, supposedly by the Iranians. Would that do the trick?

They have already tried sending a US aircraft carrier to Iran's shores, which was to serve both as a preparatory step for US airstrikes but yet also an attempt to tempt the Iranians to sink it. This tragedy may have potentially been sufficient to unite Americans to agree to a war against Iran, but something more bloodthirsty is going to be required once the draft is taken into account.
Or would the government never do such a thing to "their own" people? How much concern for the American people does the government really have?

Rangel is a liberal democrat, who was one of the few politicians to be anti-war for sometime. This is no secret ploy to enlarge our military.

Perhaps before Iraq and Israel/Lebanon spiralled out of control, such an attack was possible, but I dont think it is any longer. Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan are all in the throws of civil war right now, and our policy is the chief cause.

As for getting the public into war, i think we already witnessed this with the build up to iraq and the first few years of war. The media clearly sounded the trumpets and refused to be that critical, nor report much of what was going on, on the ground. And instead of questioning the administration, it gave it a free hand. Hell, Fox News is now barely covering Iraq since its been essentially admitted to be a civil war. Interesting I say.

 

[Cythraul]

Aren't college students exempt from the draft? I hope so. If not, and if this passes, I'm going to Mexico.

 

[MasterOLightning]

No chance in hell this would pass. It's just not going to happen.

 

[OldScratch]

Aren't college students exempt from the draft? I hope so. If not, and if this passes, I'm going to Mexico.

There have been some exemptions made for college in he past, but not in a blanket manner, though I cannot provide more detail without research. However, it would be necessary to add that a college exemption would effectively nullify Rangel's whole attempt to create more social "equity" in the military, etc. Thus, I would have to believe that no free-pass of any kind for the college folks would be part of this bill, as it would defeat the whole point of it.

 

[OldScratch]

Rangel is a liberal democrat, who was one of the few politicians to be anti-war for sometime. This is no secret ploy to enlarge our military.

Perhaps before Iraq and Israel/Lebanon spiralled out of control, such an attack was possible, but I dont think it is any longer. Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan are all in the throws of civil war right now, and our policy is the chief cause.

As for getting the public into war, i think we already witnessed this with the build up to iraq and the first few years of war. The media clearly sounded the trumpets and refused to be that critical, nor report much of what was going on, on the ground. And instead of questioning the administration, it gave it a free hand. Hell, Fox News is now barely covering Iraq since its been essentially admitted to be a civil war. Interesting I say.

I was right with you up until the Fox News part. You cannot put FNC on without a discussion of Iraq beaking out, if it isn't already underway. I still watch Fox quite a bit(I like the abundant pretty commentators - hey we're all human ) as a lapsed Conservative, and they haven't backed off Iraq an inch that I can see. Just flipped the channel and there it was - on the financial show no less. I will monitor this though, as I wouldn't put it past them.
(FNC is not a legitimate Conservative network(ala Buckly, Buchanan, Raimondo) as so often accused - it is simply a Neocon/Bush admin/Israeli hardline shill-machine. Some may say there is no difference, but indeed there are many).

 

[speed]

I was right with you up until the Fox News part. You cannot put FNC on without a discussion of Iraq beaking out, if it isn't already underway. I still watch Fox quite a bit(I like the abundant pretty commentators - hey we're all human ) as a lapsed Conservative, and they haven't backed off Iraq an inch that I can see. Just flipped the channel and there it was - on the financial show no less. I will monitor this though, as I wouldn't put it past them.
(FNC is not a legitimate Conservative network(ala Buckly, Buchanan, Raimondo) as so often accused - it is simply a Neocon/Bush admin/Israeli hardline shill-machine. Some may say there is no difference, but indeed there are many).

I suppose my comment was a bit hasty considerng I was only surfing, and noticed every fox-news show to be covering Danny Devito and other such nonsense, while CNN and MSNBC were in Jordan for Bush's visit, and were seriously discussing Iran and Iraq.

But I agree with your assessment of FNC.

 

[derek]

It was a call for reinstating the draft. David Blunkett has called for the draft to be reintroduced here, but it won't happen.

It's posturing. The motive, I'm sure, is quite interesting.

 

[derek]

Don't you think Iran is next? It seems likely that there will be war with Iran, and that American troops will be stretched, so they will find it useful to have reinstated the draft. There are ways of making the public agree to war. Make them feel some pain in the US and anger. The speculated method for this is a dirty nuclear bomb or more detonated in the US, supposedly by the Iranians. Would that do the trick?

They have already tried sending a US aircraft carrier to Iran's shores, which was to serve both as a preparatory step for US airstrikes but yet also an attempt to tempt the Iranians to sink it. This tragedy may have potentially been sufficient to unite Americans to agree to a war against Iran, but something more bloodthirsty is going to be required once the draft is taken into account.
Or would the government never do such a thing to "their own" people? How much concern for the American people does the government really have?

I think Iran is next on the hitlist, for sure. Having seen in-action the brain-washing effects of the current administration on its people, I'd at least entertain the notion that a war with Iran could be popular, even if to begin with.

 

[Justin S.]

Taking bets on the likely-hood of a draft, or the next hypothetical war of the U.S. is certainly an "iffy" topic at best.

Please save this thread with something more substantial that what we can find on any one of thousands of amateur blogs...

 

[derek]

It remains interesting, considering American foreign policy has dictated world politics for some time now.

I think it's substantial enough for discussion.

 

[Justin S.]

Certainly U.S. foreign policy is interesting and worthy of discussion- But, not necessarily on a Philosophy board, unless approached philosophically (placing bets and simplisitc speculation doesnt cut it)

Also, many things are of interest- that has no bearing on whether it is appropriate here or not.

Perhaps there should be a "current events/politics thread" for those that wish to discuss these types of specific things.

 

[derek]

It's hardly simplistic speculation considering the relative impact such policy could have.

It's certainly more relevant than a lot of simplistic speculation that goes on here on less relative topics.

However, that said, where would the idea of a military draft fit into political philosophy? What kind of picture of the state does a military draft paint?

 

[speed]

Politics used to be a central feature of philosophy, and it still is certiantly important. Recent modern philosophers such as: Heidegger, Camus, Sartre, Foucault, Leo Strauss, Russell, all had strong political opinions, and were involved in political activism. Those are the big guns at least.

 

[Justin S.]

My objections have nothing to due with the content of this thread intrisically, in this case "politics", and everything to do with its form. PLEASE see the policy for this distinction as it is very clear. This forum is not for "hot topics" or common political punditry.