A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons
in the United States, including women, between the ages
of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service
or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the na-
tional defense and homeland security, and for other pur-
poses.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752

this once great country but the time I spent in the military was for the most part a positive experience.
peace

Now, I don't have a problem with service to one's country as it is practiced in France (I assume it is still the same... one can opt to serve in the military, in the teaching profession, etc.), but after the debacle in Iraq, people will not support this.

what the American people will or will not support.

The question is:

Will Halliburton support it?
Will Exxon support it?
Will the Carlyle Group support it?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Done deal. Bill passed. Next.

I think getting rid of the Draft was the stupidest thing we ever did.

You post here and you're in favor of slavery?

age boys that would have to go, however, I can see the point of having a draft being a good thing. If the people with money and influence had to send their precious children to the military, do you think we would keep instigating stupid wars? It would stop immediately.

And just recently came to this conclusion.

It's the fastest way to end this war.

And if it did pass- imagine what the government would
do when no one showed up for their little party.
We Refuse to send our children to keep their
piggy banks overflowing!

...a draft run by this Administration would be representative.

Calling it "slavery" is ridiculously obscene hyperbole. People are free to leave or "serve" their time in jail. :shrug:

and you know it. The draft is forced servitude. If the state can walk up to me and, operating under color of authority as the state, under threat of punishment forces me to perform *any* labor, that is forced servitude. Or, as I prefer to call it, slavery.

You might as well call taxation or mandatory K-12 education "forced servitude." :eyes:

Just because you were screwed with the draft doesn't mean it's right *or* constitutional. You and everyone else who has ever been drafted were enslaved in a very real sense.

Or are you OK with the federal government recognizing only a limited form of liberty for its citizens? You are OK with giving the federal government the unquestioned authority to tell you what you must do with two years of your life under penalty of punishment? Sorry; as for myself, I choose liberty.

Anyone and everyone who care to change it is welcome to 'invest' their blood, sweat, and tears to change it. Democratically. It's not the 'leaders' we must convince - it's the People.

But - gee - it's so much easier to play "Americal Idol" and merely vote once or twice every two years. That involves no blood or sweat - and the entertainment value (causing us to shed a tear, of course) is what we're after. For most of us, there's no difference between arguing over "American Idol" and arguaing over politics. Neither one really requires us to participate. So long as others get chosen in this year's decimation, it's just not worth getting up off our asses and making any sacrifices at all, is it?

I can hear Mr. Goodwrench now: "You can pay me now or pay me later."

It's an absolute guarantee - the cost in blood of reclaiming control of a democracy only gets larger. What the hell - mortgage tomorrow. Let our kids pay.

It's still in place. Ready to be called if need be. All boys 18 and up must sign up for the draft, or they are breaking the law.

The DRAFT boards still met every year, etc. I's still very much in place. If the government wanted to do a Draft tomarrow.. everything is in place to do so. It was never disbanded and put away. But ensured to be ready at a momments notice.

I want both to be liable and to be consicous of it.

Oh and an active draft will wake them up (as well as parents)

But if a draft was enforced, I do see them slipping in the females as well. They just haven't passed a law yet requiring females to fill out draft forms. Plus, I think they are afraid of the high increase of 'teen pregos.'

And I agree.. an active draft would wake people up. This admistration is doing everything possible to avoid it.. just for that reason.

I suppose you have no problem telling gays they have to as well, huh?

If forced into service, I will do damage to the service. People who think like you will regret forcing me into any sort of service if that's what happens- I promise it.

I like the idea of a draft, and have for years. Rangell is a good guy and he's doing this for a good reason. The red-staters wouldn't be quite so fast to support stupid wars if their kids had to go fight them.

but my liberal parents, not to mention myself, aren't too keen on my sister and I fighting wars for them either.

Fuck that.

The other side of my pro-draft stance is that I don't want people who were drafted being in a forward-deployed unit. We talked about a draft a lot when I was over there and the general consensus was we didn't want anybody on line next to us who didn't voluntarily sign on the dotted line.

Nothing against draftees or anything, it's just too much to ask of somebody.

i'm still opposed, but that approaches some middle ground

We need to throw this brain dead , one trick pony the hell out of our party and the hell out of office.

What a fucking moran.

Rangel has observed that while most Americans oppose the occupation of Iraq, they have no motivation for taking to the streets against the "war." He believes that a mandatory draft will spark opposition, in the same way that the draft was the focus of opposition against the Vietnam conflict.

Yes, the bill has almost no chance of being made in to law; but that is the point. First off, by keeping the bill active, it keeps the matter in the public eye. Since it was first introduced in 2002, it has caused public outcry against conscription and helped shine a light on the path we will have to take if this unpopular war continues. Second, it has forced the Repugs to say over and over again, "We will not implement a draft." If Rangel were to stop introducing this bill, which emphasizes universal service by all young Americans, it will become much, much easier for the Repugs to pass similar legislation that will draft only poorer Americans and leave their own precious hellspawn to attend drunken frat parties and organize Young Republican campus events to condemn draft resisters.

As long as Rangel's bill is on the table, there is no room for other conscription bills. That his bill would never pass is a feature, not a bug.

Will it be worth the thousands of dead, on both sides, that will result? Will it be worth it in order to give Bushco the manpower they need to fulfill their wildest PNAC dreams?

Sorry, but Rangel is playing with fire on this one, and if there is a mistake, it won't be him that gets burned, but the rest of us. Sorry, but it is high time that Rangel stopped playing with both fire and other peoples' lives.

There would be a vast public outcry as young men and women are drafted. And with the very few exceptions allowed in Rangel's bill, it would be difficult for the very wealthy to get exemptions from service; they would order their puppets -- excuse me, request that Congress end the war immediately. Actually, the very wealthy would not let this bill pass out of committee in the first place, much less become law.

And again, as long as this bill is on the table, there is no room for a conscription bill more to the ruling class' liking.

On ifs or maybes. You're putting too much faith in thinking that the American people would raise a protest, at least immediately. You're also underestimating the power and connections that the weathy and powerful have in this country. I don't care what provisions are written into this current bill, one way or the other, the wealthy and powerful will insure, one way or the other, that their children are excluded. One easy way I can see this happening is that while Rangel gets his bill pushed through the Senate, the House pushes through their own version, and in the negotiations to merge the two, Rangel's provisions get dropped, and certain exclusionary provisions added.

In addition, having a draft age going up to forty two is ridiculous. You put a normal forty two year old on the front lines and all their going to be is cannon fodder.

You just don't play with this kind of fire, it is too easy for it to get out of your control and burn the entire country down.

but I think the point is: as long as this bill is on the table and is all inclusive, it doesn't have a snowballs chance of passing.

The key phrase is: All inclusive.

As long as it's made perfectly clear that the rich's kids have to serve in front line units or serve at all for that matter, it will never ever become reality.

With this bill being on the table, it would be one hard pressed repuke senator to put out a counter draft bill that excludes the children of the wealthy. Then they look as if they are pandering to the rich. (which they do)

That is the whole point.

And quite frankly, if moron* and his room full of dopes actually floated the idea of an actual draft, there would be massive protests against it almost daily. And for the first time in U.S. history, a pResident would have negative approval numbers.

Rangel needs to keep this front and center.

Why should Rangel put up one of his own? He 's risking that Bushco will call his bluff, and then such a matter can be said to have "bipartisan support". Then we'll all be screwed.

Again, Rangel is playing with fire here, and sadly if a mistake happenes, it won't be him that gets burned, it will be you and I.

bluff. Because he's* a coward.

And, because if he* does, then he* risks the wrath of both laura and mommy dearest due to his* own daughters being drafted.

Frankly, if this draft of Rangels ever did get through, I can bet the farm that the first family twit twins would be first upon the chopping block to get drafted.

See, that's the point. Moron* won't risk the ultimate level of hypocrisy. That single act would be the death of the repukes.

It will never get though, but as long as it's out there, it calls everything that the repukes say about the war into question.

That's why this needs to be kept on the table.

also this bill has pre-emted the one they wanted and even proposed in the days after 9.11 that had more excpetions than a sieve.

This will be the second time that this bill will be brought up for a vote in the full House.

Nor brain dead, nor a one-trick pony. I'm glad people like that are in Congress.

The point of his draft bill is that if EVERYONE'S kids were up for the draft (including Repubs, the wealthy, the privileged, etc.), the US wouldn't be getting into imperialistic wars, and thus everyone's kids would be very much safer. If Jenna, Barbara, Mary Cheney, etc. were drafted, no way we would ever be in Iraq right now.

And I don't believe that Rangel's all inclusive draft bill would make it through both houses of Congress without the exclusionary provisions for the kids of the wealthy and well connected. Putting faith in that sort of shit is what will wind up getting a lot of people needlessly killed.

And the utter notion of drafting people up to the age of forty-two is absolutely insane, insane enough that such a provision will be kept in the final bill and lots more people will go to their deaths needlessly.

"The point of his draft bill is that if EVERYONE'S kids were up for the draft (including Repubs, the wealthy, the privileged, etc.), the US wouldn't be getting into imperialistic wars, and thus everyone's kids would be very much safer. If Jenna, Barbara, Mary Cheney, etc. were drafted, no way we would ever be in Iraq right now."

Given Bush's intention to invade Iraq from the moment he first entered the White House, your statement is debatable.

If that had already been in place, it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't done it, Rangel would have never introduced it.

He's making a point, and he's also doing this to cause a draft "bottleneck" in committee.

"The point of his draft bill is that if EVERYONE'S kids were up for the draft (including Repubs, the wealthy, the privileged, etc.), the US wouldn't be getting into imperialistic wars, and thus everyone's kids would be very much safer. If Jenna, Barbara, Mary Cheney, etc. were drafted, no way we would ever be in Iraq right now."

The central point is wrong.

The draft has never stopped a war. It helped bring about the end of one war some 8 years after heavy involvement. It did not stop the Civil War and one can argue the draft was more unpopular then vs. in the 60's.

it is the only way for people to stand with the poor and oppose war. We would not be in Iraq right now if Kerry's kids, the Bush twins, and Chelsea Clinton had to fight. NO WAY we would be in Iraq. Since only the poor have to go, we are in Iraq.

And it's just plain immoral

The draft hastened the end to one war 8 years in of heavy involvement. A good 4 years after the war was unpopular at home.

You cited a DU poll.

Which is hilarious because based on DU's overall opinion of Bush do you think he would actually not go to war for his masters just because his daughters might be drafted into the rear echelon?

Or let me take that even further, consider how craven the man is do you not think for a momment that a Jenna or Barabara combat injury/death would make wrap Lynch & Mission Accomplished into one glorious prop package?

we would have found a better way, imho. Agree?

I really can't because I find the logic that a draft will stop a war to be faulty.

We could have found a better way whether or not the draft existed. The powers that be decided against it. This war has become unpopular after initially being popular. But still the troops remain. A draft will not change that.

A draft would not have changed America's need to kick someone's ass after 9/11. Iraq would have still happened. How many more conscripted would now be coming home scarred physically and/or emotionally? If they came home at all?

The thought of Jenna or Barbara manning a radar terminal in Kuwait stopping this war is a cruel fantasy.

the Clintons and the Bushes would have never invaded. Blood and sacrifice are cheap when they are not your own. If Bush had to fight Saddam to the death, he would have used diplomacy. If Bush had to fight, we would not go to war. Or it would have been a last resort.

Not this bullshit again.

Were a draft to be instigated, people will hit the streets. The last thing they want to do is wake up the sheeple.

that the wealthy will be able to get around it.

I don't think anybody OWES two years of their life. It's slavery as far as I'm concerned.

...that if the dems gain control of congress rangel does not withdraw the bill?

rangel is not stupid (as an upthread post suggests), he's just an imperialst stalking horse (as we can see from recent dem voting patterns there are many pro war dems). anyone who thinks the rich will not find a way out of this IS stupid! if rangel thinks there is an "economic draft" in place now, he should work on the economy, work on providing educational opportunity for the underprivileged, for example. his bill is not going to keep the underprivileged from being drafted and it will only increase the chance of extended immoral military actions.

Said the 39 yer old.:scared:

At least, his earlier versions did. And it is never too soon to start documenting conscientious objection in the event that there is a draft.

http://www.serv.net/~techbear/writings/FAQ-CO.html

I am hoping to get an updated, reformatted version up soon.

NO GOVERNMENT or person has the right to conscript me into service in ANY capacity. Fuck em. FUCK EM ALL!

That is how it has been discussed the last few years. I think this article is interesting. Especially since the US signed this declaration in 2001.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=875907&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

>>Draftees would be selected by lottery. The first to be called would be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year. If necessary, they would be followed by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Those who are 18 or turning 19 would probably not be drafted, according to the Selective Service System.

<snip>

It could be as little as 45 days from the time the president signs the order to implement the draft to the day that the first recruits begin showing up at basic training camps.

According to current plans, the Selective Service System must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

<snip>

College and even Canada won't be options. In 2001, Canada and the United States signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. The declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Those wishing to claim conscientious objector status must show that service would be incompatible with their moral or ethical beliefs. Politics, expediency, or self-interest are not considered suitable reasons to avoid the draft.

mandatory national service. I am a free individual, and I will fight for the causes of MY choosing, at times of my choosing. This is slavery. Forced warfare.

From the link...

______________
under this Act shall be performed either--
12 (1) as a member of an active or reserve compo-
13 nent of the uniformed services; or
14 (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by
15 the President, promotes the national defense, includ-
16 ing national or community service and homeland se-
17 curity.
_________________________________

A mandatory 2 years, after traing that leaves very little enlistment time if they are really tained to do something high tech.

That leaves 'grunts'. There are your boarder security gaurds, your TSA airport screaners,etc. All at E1, E2, E3 salarys. Kinda cheep.

Plus, they can join the 'reserves'.. which is a back door draft into the regular military.. with extended 'stay' power.

I have NO problem with this bill. I can see alot of positives out of it. It can get alot of kids back onto a good track. It can encourage kids to get a decent education.. out of fear that when they server their '2 years', they will be only ecuated enough for grunt status. There are alot of 'non-military roles' that could be filled this way.

The problem I do have with this, is NOW the use of the reserves as a back door draft. Persons signing up for the 2 year mandaotry enlistment are most likly only going to be trained as grunts/foot soldiers. To be put on the first line of battle. The only way to ensure the more highly qualifed military jobs, is for a longer sign up (which covers the time of training and time to 'work off' the cost of the training)

INcluded in this bill has to be an ensurance that the time will not be extended for any reason. A regular DRAFT most take place before these guys must 'extend' their service. So the ones 'in' at that time, are not stuck 'in' at that time. AND a deteailed way of showing that the better jobs will not just go to the 'elite' children of powerful folks.

It's not actually meant to serve the purpose a draft is supposed to serve.

There will be 'job slots' that must be filled. Jobs to choose from based upon avaliblity. And one MUST choose. Two of the choices listed is the regular military and the reserves. Both of those options can keep one in the military longer then the 2 years required.. just by a stroke of a pen.

Training, etc.. would all ready be in place. The more 'grunts' that are needed (what would have been drafted if needed) would be filled by 'encourging' those 2 year manditory persons to fill job slots that will take them that direction. Because THOSE will be the only ones offered.

I'm pretty sure that those kids (all of them) will be required to take the ASVAB to see what jobs they qualify for. That is matched with what jobs are open. The kid choses based on what they are qualified for and what is open.

THere would have to be ensurance that there will be enough non-military jobs to go around. So that kids are not forced to accept military or reservist jobs to fill the manditory 2 years enlistment. It should be a true choice those kids are making that they are op-ing to join the military and are getting a waver not to do the 2 years manditory.

AND there needs to be a clear picture that they are not military with military 'rights' or expections of long term health care, etc. NOT that it's anything to write home about now. But a person serving this way shouldn't be called 'vets' or be able to claim they werved in the military, etc. But that they did their 2 year commmunity service, whish is really what it is. With SOME military (Basic training( envolved.

Anyone who follows the Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No. Never. Period.

I'm not not NOT going to be compelled to serve a fucking country that wants to keep me alone for the rest of my life. I'd rather go to jail.

I. Will. Not. Serve. In. ANY. Capacity. IF someone tries to force me, I'm likely to get violent about it.

moved response to small subthread

to accommodate those who will refuse this slavery bullshit, including myself.

I will fight if I'm ATTACKED. And so will others. Should China or somebody invade our shores (due to Bewsh's doing, because only HE could piss off a major trading partner), I think no one would hesitate to defend their country in that case.

This is nothing but one more step for corporations to own all of us, tooth and nail. This draft more or less secures every American citizen (except the wealthy, of course, and don't think for one SECOND they'll be in the same boat as the rest of us ants) as world cops to do Big Oil's/Big Construction's/Big Defense's bidding whether said invadee likes it or not.

What a horrid PR move. What's it going to take for the people to get out from in front of their fucking comfort TV zones and mobilize? A restricted, policed internet? A draft? Martial Law? Another TERR attack?

. . . but am I a coward for not wanting to fight for the needs and rights of multi-national defense and oil conglomerates? Because that's exactly what a modern draft would be. This isn't like WWII. We're a damned strike-first bully nation now. We don't fight for the ideals and spirit of a country, we're fighting so corporations can get their way before their competitors can. I think I'm SMART for not putting my life on the line for the likes of Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice or Paul Wolfowitz.

I guess the question is whether it's more a matter of principle and convictions or a matter of convenience. It's easy to have convictions without putting one's own ass on the line.

(Did you actually read the references I cited? The 'straw-man' suggests you didn't bother.)

Don't get me wrong - I've "been there and done that." As a draftee and Viet Nam Veteran, I had to face these questions, not in the sophomoric context of some navel-gazing abstraction ove a couple of beers but up close and personal. I have some idea how easy it was to use terms like "slavery" and "corruption" to buttress my aversion to "serving" in Viet Nam. I've invested a large part of my life in this exact 'argument' and the conclusions didn't come easily.

In the final analysis, however, I have to face the first principles of living in a democracy - even a representative democracy. It's all about participation and "skin in the game" - and not at all about "letting George do it" or leaving the hardest jobs to the most oppressed. There's not much ethical difference I can see between a freeper with an anal-cyst evading any form of national service and exploiting cheap labor and coerced 'service' and someone who says "not my government" while continuing to pay taxes and letting others do the dying.

As a nation, it's far too easy to say "not my job" and "not my President" - and abrogate the Social Contract of a democracy: sink or swim together as a nation in the waters of our 'collective will.' The fact of the matter is that nobody who advocates democracy has the illusion that such a system of governance, even when all actually participate, will always result in the best possible decisions. What is just, however, is that the fruits of those decisions, whether sweet or sour, are shared equitably. Any other form of governance will irrevocably result in the sweetest fruits being reserved to the most powerful and the sour fruits left to the least powerful.

But it's a "Catch-22." When people do NOT step up and participate - fully and completely - it's an abdication of the most fundamental responsibility of a democracy. Such an attitude is merely a fuller and more complete surrender of our democracy to the narrow rule of plutocrats and oligarchs.

It will never get easier to regain a democracy! The sacrifices and bloodshed needed to regain it will become greater each and every day.

As long as people are deluded into thinking some "hero" will come along - like the Lone Ranger - and, through his or her greater courage and sacrifice, like a benevolent and loving parent, will regain our democracy for us and leave it under the Tree of Liberty like a Christmas present is escapism and delusion of the highest order. It's the kind of myth that only serves the narrowest of exploitative and oppressive interests.

Far from being willing to shed our blood in the streets to regain our democracy, learning from the examples people all over the globe over many centuries, I don't see a willingness to make even lesser sacrifices like withholding taxes, engage in civil disobedience (like Cindy), or put "skin in the game" in even non-military forms of service!

I cannot, for the life of me, see such attitudes as compatible with a commitment to the principles and responsibilities of democracy in the slightest.

Didn't earn enough to pay taxes last year.

Won't this year.

FUCK EM.

You're for a draft because you believe it would be all-inclusive (a WHOPPER of a lie) and it would test the mettle of America's taxpaying populace who you believe, opposed to the war or not, should be conscripted because only then will they be truly qualified to oppose and bring down the belief systems of a corpocratic structure currently enjoying a stranglehold on the taxes and finances of the citizenry.

I'm not getting into a giant dick-swinging, "I'm a better debater than you" contest over this issue. I don't agree with you and nothing you can say is ever GOING to get me to agree with this rather weird point of view. War is wrong, being forced to do something you don't want to have anything to do with is wrong, and it makes you no less of a supporter of the mission of our military if you don't support conscription. The draft is already here. Every male by law is required to sign up for Selective Service when they turn 18.

"Not my President" is a perfectly valid argument. I don't consider him a leader or even a human being. He's beneath me morally, he's a high-paid common criminal, and certainly not one who I'd EVER be willing to lay my life or my child's life on the line for. I'm not the one under some delusion that we have a democracy in this country or currently a government whose ideals and policies meet the needs of its citizenry.

The fact that 51% or more of our discretionary tax dollars go to a waste vacuum such as the DOD is unfortunate, but that is the unspoken law of our land. I don't exactly have a choice in that matter, lest I get jailed. Yet how many people would be under a specter of death because they didn't pay taxes? This isn't some kind of joke - it's your LIFE. A life of any human being isn't worth playing with. It's senseless to become violent to end violence and militarism. You reinstitute a draft, that will mobilize EVERYONE, especially if the age limit is 42. You'll get your blood in the streets. You'll get the storming of the White House. It's never going to happen because of that eventuality and they know this. I'd rather have and work harder for a peaceful solution to wrestle the reins of government from the current Junta holding it hostage.

Well, that's either an insult directed at me personally or a one-sided view of 'discussion.' I'm often disappointed with the apparent lack of comprehension of what it means to be a "democrat" let alone a "liberal democrat" - so this is nothing new. That's why I chose my sig.

Nonetheless, thanks for alerting me to the fact I've wasted my time and effort in civilly attempting to present a perspective based on 'democratic' values and principles - under what I see as an ethical imperative. (Perhaps you can get DU to remove the 'Reply' link from your posts when any attempted 'discussion' is wasted?)

:shrug:

that's not exactly a 'Draft' ... seems you have options... then again, let's see how loud the Republican'ts scream...

....are my only options for this one. Either way, my life is over. :cry: :scared: :nuke:

We all refuse. Gandhi style.

do you all really think the rich would want their kids in uniform?

Not in a million years, Rangel is showing the chickenhawk cowards what they really are...cowards, but brave with OTHER peoples children.

...so they'd buy/bribe/cheat their way OUT of it, while the rest of us common shmucks are rounded up and shipped off!!!! It's what the rich DO! Put their money to use to ensure maximum comfort and safety!

It's been said before: Rangel is playing with FIRE, and WE'RE the ones that are going to get burned!

that's what gets me.

Invading Iraq in no way "for the common defense."

If Iraq landed troops in the U.S. tomorrow, yeah, I'd fight. That's common defense.

Invading another country because we feel like it is NOT constitutional, and is NOT common defense.

I will not serve. Call me unpatriotic, call me immoral, call me ungrateful. I don't give a shit. I'm 20 years old, and I'm not going to go die in the desert. I wish all the other 20 year olds who ARE in the desert could come home tomorrow, and i will continue to work to make that happen. But going there myself does nothing. I love America, but I will not die for oil, and I will not die for Bush.

:applause:

:yourock:


Join us.

This stuff has been getting to me lately

BTW, I LOVE that picture

:hi:

Liberty or death.

Those are my only 2 conditions. I have no problem with dying for my country.

1.) Bush intentionally allowed American citizens to die in Katrina.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765058.stm

2.) Bush intentionally allowed American citizens to be murdered on 9/11 (research "Able Danger").
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

3.) Bush distorted evidence and lied about Iraq resulting in more death and destruction.
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

I have no respect for our current pResident and his cronies.

A lot of countries have that. It could be the military (and, incidentally, as f**ked up as this war is, in general I think the US Military is overall a good organization and except for the circumstances of this war would recommend it to somebody who's looking for some direction), americorps, teaching in a public school, being a park ranger (we really need them) or forest service officer, being a cop. Doctors could work in clinics, lawyers could work as public defendents.

I'm just spitballing here, but I'd wager most if not all DU'ers have done at least 2 years of public service. Frankly it's the freeper types who think they can get a free lunch by living in this wonderful country and pretending they earned all our blessings through their own work. Some people need to wake up and realize that public service is what made this country great, and denigrating public service is the central focus of those who are working to reduce America to slavery.

NO ONE and NO STATE has the right to tell me what I must do and when. This is conscription - slavery. I will not tolerate it.

I will choose was causes to devote my time to, and where, and when.

For me it not so much a political issue, but a personal one. I don't want someone in my foxhole watching my back that does not want to be there. Or worse forced to be there. That leads to a degraded fighting force. When the fog of war comes all you have is the bond with your buddies.

But I also think that "if" there is a draft this war would end very quickly, people would be more involved. But I would not support a draft just to end the war. There are other ways.

illegal war. We need to bring the troops home not send more to die.

Rep Rangel, Charles B. D N.Y. has some stone to grind 'cause he is grinding away at this "Draft Bill" (if you will)...

the first link will give you the current staus of the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04752:

the second link will give you the bill's older sibling which has met the same fate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02723:

i am not saying this is nothing to worry about... i am just saying hey people look beneath the print and see the content of the issue... it is not hard to google the bill before everybody freak the f*cks out...
including my wife.

It will BLOW UP right in our fucking faces. Dumbest idea ever.

This had me going for a moment, then I got it. Rangel is showboating again.

At least he is "our" showboater.

Is Rangel insane?

And don't give me this "it's a trick to get people to reject the issue" bullshit. This is a waste of time - write up some bills that DIRECTLY IMPROVE THE LIVES OF AMERICANS!!! Don't be gambling our lives on a bluff just to stir up public anger during an election year. Assholes.

horrible - by for example reactivating the draft - we can end this war sooner is manipulative and dishonest. It is also wrong in it premise. The vietnam era draft enabled the war mongerers to cause the deaths of 50,000 americans and 2,000,000 vietnamese and field an army of 500,000 in vietnam alone. Yes it caused domestic upset - eventually - but not until the damage had been done. At least this way we are militarily stretched thin with an expeditionary force that is only 1/4 the size of the one we put in vietnam. No thanks. Not for my kids, ever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=664891

Welcome to D.U. again!
:toast: