Draft Bill and a House Resolution

Hey everyone,

first i'd like to call your attention to a bill that's been stalled in committee for over a year.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

most of the people i know are calling this the mandatory draft bill, which is about right on target, as it proposes that every man and woman in the usa between the ages of 18 and 26 serve 2 years of national service, either military or civil, though if they think you're military material, thats where you're going.

after dicking around on the LOC website for a little while, i found that the house sponsor of this bill is Charles Rangel of New York. I had no idea who this was (still don't, in fact), but in looking through his bill list, i found another interesting work:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108...:H.CON.RES.323:

This resolution (also stalled in committee for nearly a year) calls for the immediate resignation of donald rumsfeld, secretary of defense.

my question is, what the hell is this guy thinking? why is a democrat trying to reinstitute the draft, when the majority of the people he's pissing off with this legislation are democratic voters? is he taking democracy to a socialist extreme, saying national service for everyone and then we'll tax you a whole bunch? is he trying to garner conservative support for this year's election?

thoughts?

another fun peice of info i just found:

http://www.rangel.addr.com/pressreleases/newdraft.html

"But as a combat veteran of the Korean conflict, I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice. Throughout much of our history, Americans have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally. That's why I will ask Congress next week to consider and support legislation I will introduce to resume the military draft."

[RickSp]

my question is, what the hell is this guy thinking? why is a democrat trying to reinstitute the draft, when the majority of the people he's pissing off with this legislation are democratic voters? is he taking democracy to a socialist extreme, saying national service for everyone and then we'll tax you a whole bunch? is he trying to garner conservative support for this year's election?

Rangel is playing to his base. I think it is half the "race card" and half the liberal warm and fuzzy glow for the idea of "public service."

"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance." According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft

He is in essence saying, "let the rich white kids do some of the dying."

Pity he doesn't have the wit or will to say, "stop these ugly little wars that have nothing to do with defending the nation and should be stopped." That would do more to protect the nation than the draft.

[ericsp23]

The draft bills were introduced in both chambers by Democrats in an effort to hurt Bush politically. They feel that if people start seriously believing that the draft will be reinstated then support for the war and for Bush will plummet. As long as Bush is in office and the Republicans control both houses, these bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell of being passed. I imagine they will be dropped if Kerry is elected.

[m5lange1]

I recall when Rangel first introduced this bill. It was moderately big news at the time. I watched at least two interviews he gave on the subject.

He publicly stated that he wanted the mandatory service because he felt the lower socioeconomic population (largely minorites) were making up too much of the national defense.He said this would force the rich to serve also.

It sounded like grandstanding at the time and still does. Rangle is making a strong point to his base but he knows full well the rich will continue to avoid service if they so desire regardless of a draft polocy.

It really is old news and was raised as a statement more than a real intent.

[RickSp]

The sick irony here is that now that we are sinking deeper into a quagmire and the various neo-cons are making belicose noises about Iran, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Republicans taking up the cause the Democrats never intended to pursue, if Bush gets re-elected.

thats an interesting point. do you really think that the neo-cons might actually pick this one up just because of what they want to accomplish in the middle east? amended to exempt sons and daughters of politicians and CEOs?

for some reason i don't feel like they could pull that without having a revolution on their hands. i mean, people are already uptight about this bill, so imagine if someone gave it a fighting chance in a republican congress?

again, thoughts?

[RickSp]

My nightmare scenario is that Israel attacks Iran (with the bunker busters that we just gave them) setting off a regional war, that the US joins in on. In times of crisis a draft would be swept through Congress just like the Patriotic Act was after 9/11. As Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by ericsp23, As long as Bush is in office and the Republicans control both houses, these bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell of being passed. I imagine they will be dropped if Kerry is elected.

I think that after the election, both parties will be supporting the draft. it will be very interesting to see how they go about exempting their own sons and daughters from serving this time.