Charles Rangel on Stossel: Reinstate the draft

[AZKing]

Would this guy just go away? He's OBSESSED with the draft.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#/v/4567046/rep-rangel-bring-back-the-draft/?playlist_id=87530

[JK/SEA]

I'd be down with the draft age set at 5-85...just think, we could roll public schools and college and social security into one program, and have a ready to go fighting army with everyone living in barrack type housing to defend the fatherland...err..i mean homeland.

Rangel...go kill yourself please.

[Kregisen]

lmao I love how Rangel is like "the upper class lets the poor go to war for them" then Stossel is just like "well actually, we have the statistics right here, and the opposite is true" then Rangel is "oh ummm well ummm"

What a fucking dumbass. He needs to get the d*** out of his throat too, can't even understand what he's saying.

[sailingaway]

Why doesn't he just volunteer, personally?

[Pericles]

Why doesn't he just volunteer, personally?

Rangel has the Combat Infantryman's Badge (over 30 days on the line in a rifle company) from the Korean War. Even I have to respect him for that.

[daviddee]

...

[jtstellar]

His reasoning is just.

1. He is not a ChickenHawk. He served on the lines in an actual War. This can not be taken away from him.

2. The wars would be ended quickly if the draft was brought back. You would see the streets on fire again, you would see the Pro-War crowd think twice when their little Johnny is sent home with his new prosthetic testicles and legs, etc.

I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".

actually you may have a point.. it would seem that this makes war a part of the public debate rather than making soldiers privately paid mercenaries sponsored by the government to consume private weapon research developer's products at the doorstep of foreign countries.

but ron paul has always spoken out against a draft and i have pretty much just followed him on this issue. ron paul's sentiment is that it is immoral for a select few to institute policies then force others to fight their wars as a result. the opposite may be true however--precisely because the politically eligible population will be drafted, they may not remain apathetic and this as a result could prevent unnecessary conflicts altogether as moral hazard is removed.

of course, to do this, you would have to include drafting age to include everybody so the heavily skewed older population can't vote young ones into war. you don't need to draft old people to fight.. draft them as army chefs, accountants, translators, engineers etc.

[specsaregood]

His reasoning is just.
I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".

How about we just make the draft only include those that vote for war or police actions. Let all the American people decide with a national vote and those who vote yes are eligible for the draft.

[osan]

His reasoning is just.

1. He is not a ChickenHawk. He served on the lines in an actual War. This can not be taken away from him.

2. The wars would be ended quickly if the draft was brought back. You would see the streets on fire again, you would see the Pro-War crowd think twice when their little Johnny is sent home with his new prosthetic testicles and legs, etc.

I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".

I agree. All volunteer armed forces changed the game considerably. Nobody could claim they were forced, thereby removing all bases for protesting. They signed a contract, the provisions of which can be just about anything, whereas this would not be the case with conscription. All volunteer was a wet-dream come true for DoD. Reinstating the draft would, IMO, be a last resort option in the event the people actually woke up and said "hell no". I do not foresee that happening any time soon, so I would say DoD is still in the pink on this issue - no shortage of nitwits to do the masters' bidding.

[jtstellar]

How about we just make the draft only include those that vote for war or police actions. Let all the American people decide with a national vote and those who vote yes are eligible for the draft.

yes but in rare but legitimate case of threat, you don't want to discourage people standing up to defend their neighbors.

[Tal]

I dont think reinstating the draft would be a good thing for the liberty movement even if it would piss off some people because it would also create millions upon millions more of americans that would be loyal towards the military-industrial complex.

I enjoyed the interview though, that crook Rangel was really squirming and looking really uncomfortable because of Stossel's questioning, I dont think he is used to journalists being so hostile to him.

[specsaregood]

I agree. All volunteer armed forces changed the game considerably. Nobody could claim they were forced, thereby removing all bases for protesting. They signed a contract, the provisions of which can be just about anything, whereas this would not be the case with conscription. All volunteer was a wet-dream come true for DoD. Reinstating the draft would, IMO, be a last resort option in the event the people actually woke up and said "hell no". I do not foresee that happening any time soon, so I would say DoD is still in the pink on this issue - no shortage of nitwits to do the masters' bidding.

I'm not convinced it should be called an "all volunteer" army. When I think volunteer, I think unpaid activity like working in a soup kitchen......joining a militia would be more akin to being a volunteer army. Our military pays and offers other incentives that many signing up most likely can't envision attaining any other way. Do you call walmart employees, "voluntary workers"?


yes but in rare but legitimate case of threat, you don't want to discourage people standing up to defend their neighbors.
In the case where somebody actually attacked us I don't think there would be any trouble getting people to sign up.

[Danke]

So Charles Rangel is against the 13A. lol

[HOLLYWOOD]

His reasoning is just.

1. He is not a ChickenHawk. He served on the lines in an actual War. This can not be taken away from him.

2. The wars would be ended quickly if the draft was brought back. You would see the streets on fire again, you would see the Pro-War crowd think twice when their little Johnny is sent home with his new prosthetic testicles and legs, etc.

I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".
Charlie Rangel also earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in the Korean War. I acknowledge such bravery, but that cannot give you a pass to break laws or commit crimes. Another is Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, but that doesn't mean, Inouye can use his powers as a US Senator to bailout his Pacific Bank he founded and had most of his investment money in to the tune of $140 Million. Congress goes after Waters for funneling $10 Million and Senator John Ensign for Adultery/favoritism to staffers, but Daniel Inouye receives a $140 Million free pass at OUR EXPENSE.

Forgetting the cronyism and elitists that control this country, and even if they are drafted, they will be appointed to non-life threatening/lower risk military positions. Loopholes for the power elite will always be there when it comes to drafts/wars.

Politicians family members, campaign donors, corporate masters, banksters, Wall Street elitist, etc will all have privilege. They always have since WWII and today's centralized government will dictate who's lives are on the line, and those that get a pass.

Draft Dodging Dick Cheney's 5 Draft Deferments During Vietnam War

George W. Bush military service controversy appointed to USAF National Guard Reserve Duty during height of Vietnam War.

Seeking and receiving a student deferment as in the cases of Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), Joe Biden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden), Howard Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean), Dan Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle), and Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney). Then the religious deferments, ie, LDS church members (such as 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney)

[oyarde]

Good time Charlie is a scumbag

[mikem317]

So our nation's history notwithstanding, a prominent, black Congressman is now openly advocating for slavery?

I guess you thought you'd seen it all...

[Pericles]

So our nation's history notwithstanding, a prominent, black Congressman is now openly advocating for slavery?

I guess you thought you'd seen it all...

Depends on your perspective:

Draft = slavery, I suppose it does.

From the perspective Draft = "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" not in my view.


Citizens have a duty to contribute to the common defense. I now spend many weekends training people without prior military service in soldier skills. Building a unit that can serve as a credible deterrent is much easier with people who have had experience wearing uniforms that say US XXXX on them, rather than starting from zero.

[AZKing]

His reasoning is just.

1. He is not a ChickenHawk. He served on the lines in an actual War. This can not be taken away from him.

2. The wars would be ended quickly if the draft was brought back. You would see the streets on fire again, you would see the Pro-War crowd think twice when their little Johnny is sent home with his new prosthetic testicles and legs, etc.

I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".

See, I've gotten a totally different feeling of this. Rangel has tried to introduced the bill before and noted:

Some Democrat Party lawmakers claim the volunteer military may become dangerously stretched thin by events occurring in Iran, North Korea and Syria. They believe the answer to acquiring more troops is to reinstate the draft.

Congressman Charles Rangel says that once he’s chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee he will introduce new legislation to reinstate the military draft.

“Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not,” Congressman Rangel said in a statement.

So instead of maybe just pulling out of Korea, Germany, and Japan and keeping those guys well trained in the US, we'd rather have a million troops ready for an attack?

[daviddee]

...

[QueenB4Liberty]

His reasoning is just.

1. He is not a ChickenHawk. He served on the lines in an actual War. This can not be taken away from him.

2. The wars would be ended quickly if the draft was brought back. You would see the streets on fire again, you would see the Pro-War crowd think twice when their little Johnny is sent home with his new prosthetic testicles and legs, etc.

I would add a clause to #2. "All members of the executive branch, and legislative branch, that endorse the conflict must send their children/family first".

Yeah I agree with this. Bring it back, the wars might end sooner. :D

[QueenB4Liberty]

I dont think reinstating the draft would be a good thing for the liberty movement even if it would piss off some people because it would also create millions upon millions more of americans that would be loyal towards the military-industrial complex.

I enjoyed the interview though, that crook Rangel was really squirming and looking really uncomfortable because of Stossel's questioning, I dont think he is used to journalists being so hostile to him.

Just because you're forced to go to war doesn't automatically mean you'll love the MIC.

[outspoken]

The draft is one of the greatest violations of personal individual liberty and basically is the state claiming property of your life. Hell hath no fury for any government that tries to claim one of my children as their property.

[Tal]

Just because you're forced to go to war doesn't automatically mean you'll love the MIC.

Maybe not for everyone but I think a large part of the people that join the military get brainwashed into being good little agents of the state not to mention I think letting people be in the military teaches them how comfortable life can be while being an employee of the government, you dont have to worry about pleasing any customers or enduring any competition from other companies when your a government employee after all.

I think there is a connection between periods of large scale wars and militarizations of a society and these socities becoming more socialistic and hostile towards the free market, not only during the war but also after it and this is why I dont support instituting the draft under any circumstance.

[mikem317]

Depends on your perspective:

Draft = slavery, I suppose it does.

From the perspective Draft = "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" not in my view.

Citizens have a duty to contribute to the common defense. I now spend many weekends training people without prior military service in soldier skills. Building a unit that can serve as a credible deterrent is much easier with people who have had experience wearing uniforms that say US XXXX on them, rather than starting from zero.

I suppose citizens have a duty to contribute to the common defense. However, I don't believe people should be coerced by the state, into being pressed into any national service, be it military or otherwise. In the end, we have a singular question to ask: Do we want freedom or tyranny? Most on this board would surely chose the former. In that sense, a draft is totally incompatible since it allows the state to lay claim to your life, time and labor.


Yeah I agree with this. Bring it back, the wars might end sooner. :D

That's really the "silver lining" of Rangel's evil proposal. However, I'm still against it since it is totally incompatible with the central tenants of freedom.

[jtstellar]

Dr Paul's views are correct when taken in their totality. He is against undeclared war, he is against the war state/empire, he is against the draft in these contexts, etc.

My comments on the draft assume that we are never going to get rid of the war state/empire by choice. So within these parameters I support the draft as right now we have an "all voluntary" force comprised of bribery and false promises.

What do I mean? Well lets look at the tools used for enlistment:

1. US Citizenship for service. If you are not an American citizen you can serve and get a fast track to a green card and if you have a rgeen card you get citizenship on the first day of service. Family, by normal immigration rules, is included in this.

Reference: http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_10_18/us/military_service_citizenship.htm

2. GI Bill for college education. "Need an education? Come kill for us... We'll give you your education"

3. Sign on bonus. Come kill our enemies and we will give you $20K. Re-enlist and serve more tours we will give you more money.

Reference: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080331163040AAhUJfH

4. Unemployment is high. We offer you a "job" (and bonus in #3)

5. The military has lowered the requirements repeatedly. Criminal conviction? Not a problem. Can't pass the tests? Not a problem. Etc Etc

6. Propaganda focused at those who have nationalistic pride (Pearl Harbor in WWII or current day 9/11/01)

7. They are now allowing women in most all roles.


So, is it -really- voluntary? You take 18 to 20 year old kids and put the above in front of them. Kids who are not US citizens, kids with no money or prospects, etc.

It is about as voluntary as a single mother sucking dick for food for her kids... "Well she voluntarily sucked dick on the corner... After we destroyed the economy, destroyed the dollar bill, forced commodities through the roof, exported her job to China, after we locked her husband up in a rape cage, she was evicted from her apartment after her landlord's house was forceclosed on a liar loan, etc etc"

actually when i talked about the side benefit of a draft i forgot about the potential corruption in the drafting process and the scope of expansion it would require of the government, invasion and loss of privacy, keeping records of all sorts and the excuses for doing so even perhaps into financial matters so "it's easier and track to punish those who do not enlist"..

all sorts of acts would become justified by the fed gubmint. 4th amendment would also be slaughtered just on the premise of fed gubmint can grab citizens from states and employ whatever necessary measures to achieve so, and drafted number would be so great that state militia would be miniscule etc..

when taken in the full scope then in fact yes my small support for the theoretical benefit of a draft seems something out of a drunk and into fantasy land

in regards to the subsidized and choice-lessened younger recruits, perhaps the question really is inherent in maintaining a standing "public" army in its propensity for issues and corruption. it would be worse to maintain a standing army by draft of the whole population which by the way would drive away citizenship from better talented population who prefer peace and keep those only too poor to care. a "voluntary" army would still pose questions of many sorts as long as it is a "public" army.

[kpitcher]

One thing I doubt we'll ever hear any politician answer would be... Since our armed services are trying to be gender neutral, when do 18 year old females have to start signing the selective service paperwork?

[ChaosControl]

The apathetic would suddenly give a damn if there was a draft and you'd actually see a real protest instead of whatever kind of b.s. you call the "protests" today.
For that very reason, a draft won't occur. They know they couldn't get away with their endless wars as easily.

[ChaosControl]

One thing I doubt we'll ever hear any politician answer would be... Since our armed services are trying to be gender neutral, when do 18 year old females have to start signing the selective service paperwork?

I really hate the whole "gender-neutral" view of modern society, pisses me off probably more than any other thing about the modern era.