Rangel (D-N.Y.) wants to bring back the draft before Syria vote

[Dianne]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15404045-rangel-wants-to-bring-back-the-draft-before-congress-votes-on-war-with-syria

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that before the United States takes additional steps toward military action in Syria, the country should reinstate the draft.

“I truly believe we should have a national draft act before the Congress acts,” Rangel said on “Weekends with Alex Witt” on MSNBC.

Rangel has long been a proponent of reinstating the draft so that every socioeconomic group is required to fight when military actions are undertaken. He has introduced several bills over the years to bring back conscription. In addition to reintroducing the National Universal Service Act in February, Rangel also proposed the All American Selective Service Act, which would require women in the 18-25 age demographic to join men of that age in registering with the Selective Service.

“We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm's way," the 22–term representative and decorated Korean War veteran said earlier this year.

Rangel told Witt that military recruiting currently focuses on the unemployed and low-income Americans .

“There is no question in my mind that time and time again presidents of the United States introduce our young men and women into harm’s way, and members supporting it, knowing that their families, their loved ones would not be placed in this. And if you take a look at the background as to where they are recruiting, they’re not in the Hamptons, they’re not at the wealthy areas, they go where unemployment is high …”

When asked Sunday how he would vote on a strike against Syria if a vote were taken today, Rangel did not mince words. “There’s no question in my mind I would vote ‘no,’ because so far there’s been no evidence that what’s happening in Libya (sic) is a threat to our national security.”

He also said that there’s no such thing as a “limited war” and cited US involvement in Iraq as an example of a war that was supposed to be a short affair but went on for several years.

[AngryCanadian]

Thats fucking low i have an idea how about we send all the interventionists into an war zone for 45 days with no gears expect there weapons eh? i wonder if these assholes would like that sort of ACTION.


He also said that there’s no such thing as a “limited war” and cited US involvement in Iraq as an example of a war that was supposed to be a short affair but went on for several years.
Of course there is no such thing as a “limited war” did but America's involvement in the Iraqi war has its repetition damaged for lying to the world of its Intel gathering.


And now they want us to believe Syria wont be another Iraq.

"For the Nazi Grammars out there i have edited parts of it"

[Cap]

wow thats fucking low i have an idea how about we send all the interventionists into an war zone for 45 days with no gears expect there weapons eh? i wonder if these assholes would like that sort of ACTION.


Yes sure did but America's repetition thanks to the Iraqi war has being destroyed in the ME. Can these interventionists even tell that?

No offense man, but trying to decipher your post made my head hurt.

[AngryCanadian]

No offense man, but trying to decipher your post made my head hurt.


Oh look another Nazi Grammar :rolleyes: did you even see the quote i added in my post? guess not.

[Cap]

I apologize, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[Scrapmo]

Have a draft for those who agree with foreign intervention. ;)

Im sure the "fringe loony isolationist" numbers would explode.

Warhawks only want to send other people kids to get killed.

[fisharmor]

I'm all for it.
Make everyone fight.
It'll do several things.

First, it'll knock the chosen ones doing the fighting now off their high horses.
Second, it'll destroy morale in the military because it'll be full of people who don't want to be there.
Third, it'll create the biggest antiwar voting block since 1973.

[Dianne]

I'm all for it.
Make everyone fight.
It'll do several things.

First, it'll knock the chosen ones doing the fighting now off their high horses.
Second, it'll destroy morale in the military because it'll be full of people who don't want to be there.
Third, it'll create the biggest antiwar voting block since 1973.


Good points !!! Although I'm sure there will be some type of exemption for those well positioned, as they are now doing with Obama Care.

[mosquitobite]

I'm all for it.
Make everyone fight.
It'll do several things.

First, it'll knock the chosen ones doing the fighting now off their high horses.
Second, it'll destroy morale in the military because it'll be full of people who don't want to be there.
Third, it'll create the biggest antiwar voting block since 1973.

I've said the same thing for years. Every time some neo-con goes on an Iran rant, I bring up the draft.

We are using RESERVE troops right now, for MULTIPLE tours. They spend more time in battle than any Vietnam soldier had to endure. And have I mentioned they are supposed to be RESERVE troops?!

It's ridiculous to pretend we can go into another war without a draft!

[Cap]

In my opinion, a new amendment would be required as it doesn't appear that there is no basis in our constitution for a draft. It says nothing about mandatory military service or the authority of government to force citizens into government service.
Article 1 section 8 says "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;".

[Danke]

What will be the fate of the chat room with all the Chat Punks off to war?

[V3n]

I'm for it. People would take war a lot more seriously, and all the apathy we see today toward Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.. would turn into real protests. There would be a lot more "don't do it!" calls to Congress.

[Icymudpuppy]

I am against a draft of everyone. Instead I support a popular vote with individual identity tagged to the vote. People who vote for a war will be required to report. People who vote against will not. The war will only happen if the vote is more than 50% in favor, and enough of those voting in favor are actually capable of serving in a front line capacity. Professional soldiers voting against will be assigned to support roles such as field hospitals, and logistic warehouses.

[oyarde]

What will be the fate of the chat room with all the Chat Punks off to war?

It is a new age , medics may have net access .

[oyarde]

I am against a draft of everyone. Instead I support a popular vote with individual identity tagged to the vote. People who vote for a war will be required to report. People who vote against will not. The war will only happen if the vote is more than 50% in favor, and enough of those voting in favor are actually capable of serving in a front line capacity. Professional soldiers voting against will be assigned to support roles such as field hospitals, and logistic warehouses.

Sounds good , I bet they have real coffee at the field hospital .

[oyarde]

Charlie is a nutter , but he is right that there is an unemployment problem with the youth , problem is , his voting record contributed to it .

[Cleaner44]

I am against the draft because it is slavery. I do see Rangel's point, right now most Americans don't feel the pain of our wars directly. They don't even connect the rising prices of bacon to the debt that is being enabled by the Fed. There is no doubt that a draft would certainly cool off many pro-war voices.

If we had a private industry career that was more lucrative for the poor than the military we could cut off a lot of recruitment.

[RockEnds]

I am against a draft of everyone. Instead I support a popular vote with individual identity tagged to the vote. People who vote for a war will be required to report. People who vote against will not. The war will only happen if the vote is more than 50% in favor, and enough of those voting in favor are actually capable of serving in a front line capacity. Professional soldiers voting against will be assigned to support roles such as field hospitals, and logistic warehouses.

I like it. But I think there's a front line role for pretty much everyone. If nothing else, they can lay down and catch bullets. My now deceased neighbor used to talk a lot about using bodies to stop bullets on Normandy Beach. Anyone who can vote for the war can serve in that capacity. I doubt if it would take much training. I really want the obviously disqualified jack@sses posting pro-war messages on social media sites to find some way to personally contribute to the cause. On the front line. If there is no front line, one should be created just for them. And if it's not obvious, yes, I've pretty much had my fill of endless war.

[oyarde]

I am against the draft because it is slavery. I do see Rangel's point, right now most Americans don't feel the pain of our wars directly. They don't even connect the rising prices of bacon to the debt that is being enabled by the Fed. There is no doubt that a draft would certainly cool off many pro-war voices.

If we had a private industry career that was more lucrative for the poor than the military we could cut off a lot of recruitment.

I am opposed to Rangel , the draft , intervention in Syria, guess I am just against it all :)

[JK/SEA]

bringing back the draft should wake these young sleepy sheep from their apathetic world.

be nice to see massive protests again..

[fr33]

Yes the draft is slavery but so is lot of other things we put up with. They couldn't get away with this endless war crap as easily if there was a draft.

[Danke]

I am opposed to Rangel , the draft , intervention in Syria, guess I am just against it all :)

We could use some Code Talkers.

[Contumacious]

Of course there is no such thing as a “limited war” did but America's involvement in the Iraqi war has its repetition damaged for lying to the world of its Intel gathering.

And they know that.

The purpose of launching Tomahawk missiles into Syria is to provoke Iran and Lebanon into retaliating against Israel.

Obama will then claim the high moral ground . He will assert that those countries support gassing innocent children and that he will have no choice but to escalate the war to attack those countries.

Rangel knows that and wants to re-institute slavery.

.

[V3n]

I'll give it to Rangel on this, at least he's consistent (on this).

I remember this interview with Judge Napolitano in 2011:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/charlie-rangel-to-judge-napolitano-on-debt-limit-its-a-great-government-why-not-be-big/

So I dug deeper, and he was saying the same thing back in 2007:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2007/08/13/15440/rangel-draft/


"But for the middle class and the kids of the Congress, and the Pentagon, and the White House, they’re not involved. So you find a situation where people support the war, but not my kids."

Rangel continues to push for a draft, but argues that it should not resemble the one this nation experienced in Vietnam. “Vietnam had a political draft,” he said. “All you had to do is what Cheney did, what Bush did. All you had to do was know a politician and get deferments.” Rangel is calling for a draft with no deferments.

[erowe1]

eh?

Are you just pretending to be Canadian? Or did it really just come out this way when you typed it?

[jbauer]

Have a draft for those who agree with foreign intervention. ;)

Im sure the "fringe loony isolationist" numbers would explode.

Warhawks only want to send other people kids to get killed.

Yup. I've advocated to return the draft all the way up to 65. Plus requiring it to be paid for immediately through additional taxes paid by all a d double for the retired crowd (since they'd not be eligible for the draft). I know e dry thing I just typed goes against libertarianism but I'm convinced it would solve our war problem over night.

[puppetmaster]

Hey they should draft just liberty folks......and let us come directly to DC to pick up our gear/weapons.

[oyarde]

We could use some Code Talkers.

Think I will just sit the rest out and defend my own.

[kcchiefs6465]

bringing back the draft should wake these young sleepy sheep from their apathetic world.

be nice to see massive protests again..
It will also land a few people who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace in a penitentiary.

The precedent of implied government ownership cannot be understated, either.

[oyarde]

We could use some Code Talkers.

I am also doubtful the Osluni of today could get it right..........

[cindy25]

could this be the real intent of Syria?

I have seen an unusual amount of pro-draft activity lately (The Guardian, Minneapolis Trib, etc)

forced national servitude has always been a progressive/socialist dream both in USA and UK

[kcchiefs6465]

could this be the real intent of Syria?

I have seen an unusual amount of pro-draft activity lately (The Guardian, Minneapolis Trib, etc)

forced national servitude has always been a progressive/socialist dream both in USA and UK
If there is only 9% supporting the actual intervention I'd imagine even less support the draft. Right now I don't see it as politically feasible.

Who knows in the future. Any candidate even floating the idea of implementing a draft or national service should be removed from office. It shows a clear lack of understanding of what America was founded on.

There may come a time where people are more willing to send their children off to die. If they didn't have the plans no doubt there wouldn't be the selective service requirements.

[cindy25]

If there is only 9% supporting the actual intervention I'd imagine even less support the draft. Right now I don't see it as politically feasible.

Who knows in the future. Any candidate even floating the idea of implementing a draft or national service should be removed from office. It shows a clear lack of understanding of what America was founded on.

There may come a time where people are more willing to send their children off to die. If they didn't have the plans no doubt there wouldn't be the selective service requirements.

one false flag could fool the sheeple.

I think Obama will do it by exec order by making national service a requirement for student loans

[surf]

while I try to get his point...

The draft is a form of slavery

mods need to change the post title to "Rangel (D-N.Y.) wants to bring back slavery before Syria vote"

[mosquitobite]

People think it will actually pass?

The mere point is to get these chicken hawks on record!

[jllundqu]

I'm for a draft, too. It might be the only way to have a serious discussion about foreign policy with the sheeple. Once their little 'Trevors' and 'Haydens' and 'Khloes' are shipped off to some shithole as cannon fodder, people might start to question the wisdom of another god damn war.

[Snew]

if so, I'm outta here.

[surf]

I'm for a draft, too....one of the first pro-slavery posts I've seen here in quite some time;)

[puppetmaster]

I'm for a draft, too. It might be the only way to have a serious discussion about foreign policy with the sheeple. Once their little 'Trevors' and 'Haydens' and 'Khloes' are shipped off to some shithole as cannon fodder, people might start to question the wisdom of another god damn war.
Obviously you have no children to ship off to the nightmare of battle or equally as bad, their death.
You are part of the problem and you don't even know it.

[puppetmaster]

Bump.....wow pro draft RPF members......wow

[otherone]

Just send the pigs. They're already dressed for it.
http://www.blauer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SWAT-Gear.png

[nobody's_hero]

I am against a draft of everyone. Instead I support a popular vote with individual identity tagged to the vote. People who vote for a war will be required to report. People who vote against will not. The war will only happen if the vote is more than 50% in favor, and enough of those voting in favor are actually capable of serving in a front line capacity. Professional soldiers voting against will be assigned to support roles such as field hospitals, and logistic warehouses.

I was thinking about that, too.

You support the war, you go to the top of the draft list.

One thing is certain, the vast majority of people don't feel the 'sting' of war at home like they used to. In 1944 when you went to the store to get your ration of 1 can of yams, when you're trying to prepare thanksgiving dinner for several family members, you knew there was a war on.

The federal reserve has learned how to cushion the economic effects of war so that people can continue to play their angry crush candy bird games on their androne phones like the world around them doesn't exist.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Stocks, public squares and baskets of rotting vegetables was a good tradition. We aught to bring that back...

-t

[Legend1104]

I apologize, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Ok which side is the wrong side, because I always wake up on the same side?

P.S. I understand Rangel's point and he makes sense because he hopes that if we force people to go to war that don't really care, then support for these wars would disappear, but obviously the draft is never the right answer to any question except "What really suck?"

[KEEF]

http://pointreyesvisions.com/Media/R_images/R_NY_images/NYCimages/DraftCardBurningNYC.jpg

[dillo]

Never thought Id say this but Rangle is 100% correct.

Socialism fails because eventually you run out of other peoples money

Warmongering works the same way, if people actually had to wager their kids or themselves we would probably be very hesitant going to war. The military is just treated like welfare at this point, people who have no stake in it always support using it.

[The Free Hornet]

Bump.....wow pro draft RPF members......wow

I believe posters are just misplacing anti-war sentiment. The reality of a new draft would not be 'no deferments'. The rich/pol's kids will have pleny of warning and will be in or have completed ROTC (officer training) and not in the front lines unless they want to be. This means fewer new military and civilian leaders from from lower or middle class. The rich will lead during and after battle. 'Why didn't you serve?'

The other reality is that the 'new deferment' already has a name: Americorp. Or is it that civilian army thing? People should be careful what they wish for. Our private high school had a "volunteering" requirement and I believe these things accomplish the goal of conditioning us to servitude. Nationwide, this is a nightmare.

[surf]

Never thought Id say this but Rangle is 100% correct.

Socialism fails because eventually you run out of other peoples money

Warmongering works the same way, if people actually had to wager their kids or themselves we would probably be very hesitant going to war. The military is just treated like welfare at this point, people who have no stake in it always support using it.
again, I understand the desirable outcome of military conscription, but in the end what you are supporting is

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND
not a position anyone w/a conscience should be able to approve of.

[willwash]

I'm for it. People would take war a lot more seriously, and all the apathy we see today toward Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.. would turn into real protests. There would be a lot more "don't do it!" calls to Congress.

This is true...right now all people care about is American idol and fantasy football.

[kcchiefs6465]

I believe posters are just misplacing anti-war sentiment. The reality of a new draft would not be 'no deferments'. The rich/pol's kids will have pleny of warning and will be in or have completed ROTC (officer training) and not in the front lines unless they want to be. This means fewer new military and civilian leaders from from lower or middle class. The rich will lead during and after battle. 'Why didn't you serve?'

The other reality is that the 'new deferment' already has a name: Americorp. Or is it that civilian army thing? People should be careful what they wish for. Our private high school had a "volunteering" requirement and I believe these things accomplish the goal of conditioning us to servitude. Nationwide, this is a nightmare.
Pretty much.

If one person is unjustly imprisoned for not reporting to what they consciously object to, and what very well may be their own demise/disfigurement/or traumatization then I don't know how anyone could be for it.

I understand that people are looking for a solution to the endless, needless wars but this clearly is not it. The precedent set alone is reason enough to never consider it. The actual ramifications of the policy; innocent citizens being imprisoned, beaten, or outcasted from society, aside.

[Danke]

Never thought Id say this but Rangle is 100% correct.

Socialism fails because eventually you run out of other peoples money

Warmongering works the same way, if people actually had to wager their kids or themselves we would probably be very hesitant going to war. The military is just treated like welfare at this point, people who have no stake in it always support using it.

Oh yeah, two wrongs make a right.

[alucard13mm]

I think perhaps mandatory 1-3 year selective service, like South Korea, would bring descipline and respect.

[mtr1979]

Give me a break every few years there is a resolution to bring back the draft and it always falls by the wayside. The same thing happened back in 2004 when Hagel and Rangel had such resolutions to bring back the draft. I don't really know what to think about this issue my attitude at this point in my life is "I did my time GFYS."
http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24280/

[Icymudpuppy]

I like it. But I think there's a front line role for pretty much everyone. If nothing else, they can lay down and catch bullets. My now deceased neighbor used to talk a lot about using bodies to stop bullets on Normandy Beach. Anyone who can vote for the war can serve in that capacity. I doubt if it would take much training. I really want the obviously disqualified jack@sses posting pro-war messages on social media sites to find some way to personally contribute to the cause. On the front line. If there is no front line, one should be created just for them. And if it's not obvious, yes, I've pretty much had my fill of endless war.

Good point. I could go for fat old man body walls. I can think of a local war monger that I'd love to put in such a role.

[Cutlerzzz]

I think perhaps mandatory 1-3 year selective service, like South Korea, would bring descipline and respect.

1-3 years of slavery.

[alucard13mm]

1-3 years of slavery.

actually i change my mind.. rich kids probably can get out of it.

[kcchiefs6465]

actually i change my mind.. rich kids probably can get out of it.
I wouldn't support 1-3 years of national service for only rich kids. Same as I wouldn't for blacks or whites or prisoners or whoever.

The government is an entity comprised of the will of the people. They have no authority to even consider such a proposition. (whether or not 99.9999999% of the people agree to it is irrelevant, though I'd imagine the numbers aren't anywhere near favorable or they would have done it by now)

If someone feels they owe the government a service (as odd as that sounds to me) they are quite capable of volunteering to pick up trash on the roads or whatever. What they aren't capable of, or would be illegitimate in trying, is to force their neighbors to pick up trash on that road. Whether or not they are helping the neighbor pick up trash, or everyone has to pick up trash, does not matter in the least.

The government is made up of the consent of the governed. As such, we are [supposed to be] the employers, they are [supposed to be] the employee. Furthermore a government simply being an organization comprised of the consent of the governed, to protect against fraud, set up courts to mediate disputes and very little else, they can't do what you can't do.

Here's a hypothetical: You just went and bought a new car. You [naturally] vote the car is yours. How many people voting against you would it take until the car was no longer [naturally] your property? One thousand people voting against you? (for your car) One million people voting against you? Everyone but you saying the car is no longer yours?

You naturally own yourself and the fruits of your labor. I don't care if 320,000,000 people say I shall be forced two years (1/30th of my life, probably) to operate as per their whims. (that is, whatever they decide at that time that one should do for two years... whether it's fight global warming and pick up trash, write tickets.. who knows?)

I wouldn't ascribe to my worst enemy the debt of "national service." It's more than just who can and can't get out of it. It's: Who owns your body? Does the government? Does the majority? These are dangerous precedents that are being set far too often.

[Christian Liberty]

I was thinking about that, too.

You support the war, you go to the top of the draft list.

One thing is certain, the vast majority of people don't feel the 'sting' of war at home like they used to. In 1944 when you went to the store to get your ration of 1 can of yams, when you're trying to prepare thanksgiving dinner for several family members, you knew there was a war on.

The federal reserve has learned how to cushion the economic effects of war so that people can continue to play their angry crush candy bird games on their androne phones like the world around them doesn't exist.

WWII was a good example of how freedom is destroyed by war. Incidentally, its also the war that everybody seems to support.

Of course, you'll get armchair "Do gooders" who can pretend like they think those sacrifices would be worth it...


1-3 years of slavery.

Indeed. Anyone who doesn't understand this isn't really in the liberty movement, whatever hyperbole they may use to make a point.

[fr33]

What about this theory:

It will teach the slaves (who are already slaves without the draft) to break bad laws and encourage civil disobedience while turning up the pressure on representatives to oppose military entanglements.

[kcchiefs6465]

And to expound on my post above:

Anyone believing in national service, the draft, or any forced service ought be removed from office.

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't ascribe to my worst enemy the debt of "national service." It's more than just who can and can't get out of it. It's: Who owns your body? Does the government? Does the majority? These are dangerous precedents that are being set far too often.

I think you do lose your right to own your own body when you commit murder. While I agree with the rest of what you said, I cannot agree with this part.

[kcchiefs6465]

What about this theory:

It will teach the slaves (who are already slaves without the draft) to break bad laws and encourage civil disobedience while turning up the pressure on representatives to oppose military entanglements.
I would refer you to post #57 and reject the argument.

You seem to be an optimist. The draft has been implemented before. People have had a salary cap. Companies taken over for government building and 'national security.'

I said in another thread the other day: If these wars were Just Wars and followed Natural Law, you wouldn't have to trick kids to fight them. You wouldn't have to pay kids to fight them. You wouldn't have to force kids to fight them.

Another thread a while back people were talking about equal rights with regards to women. The day I support women picking up a gun to fight is the day they are rolling up on our shores. The same goes for the young men of this country.

[kcchiefs6465]

My point on mentioning that drafts already happened is that when globalists (as clichéd the word has become) look for reasons to get America into a war, [WWI and WWII] the people will gladly send their children to die for a nationalistic cause or a draft.

Those who speak out will be charged for espionage or disparaging the troops. They have received decades.

It sets a bad precedent of gold confiscation, which occurred, government management of private companies for war efforts, which occurred, and the taking of men from their families. Nothing is as vile.

Encourage someone that if they are philosophically opposed to war not to show up? Twenty years! And the people you think you are waking up will clap and cheer.

[fr33]

Yeah you're right. I'm a starry eyed dreamer (and not afraid to break such laws as conscription).

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

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.
Hm?

[James Madison]

Hm?

Supreme Court ruled Selective Service does not violate the 13th Amendment. Yes, it's stupid.

On principle, I understand Rangel's point. Still a bad idea, but at least I get it. What I don't trust is the American people getting the point. Just when you think Boobus has reached his breaking point; just when the laws have become so oppressive; just when the policies have become so laughable that no one could put up with them, nothing happens. You keep telling yourself 'okay, this is it. this has to be it. this is the one that will finally get people's attention' and then nothing happens. Nothing. Happens.

People will serve up their own children to the machine. Mark my words. If the media tells them to sit, they will sit. If the media tells them to obey, they will obey, If the media tells the dying in wars of aggression is 'heroic', they will believe it. They will love it and ask for seconds.

[Cutlerzzz]

actually i change my mind.. rich kids probably can get out of it.

So slavery is only immoral if rich kids can or can't get out? If the draft were ever reinstated I would hope that rich kids could get out, as well as poor, middle class, white, black, or anyone else. The less slavery the better.