posted on December 29, 2002 07:45:19 PM
This Dem. is proposing universal military service to stay the hand of congress in seeking military solutions.
What a fool.
Has he noticed at ALL that all military actions are now initiated by the executive and only rubber stamped later by the Congress who have abdicated their responsibility to declare wars?
The next step of not bothering to get an approval after the fact will happen easily - easier with the draft.
It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. In theory you can but the practical application is difficult.
posted on December 29, 2002 08:58:11 PM NOW do you still think that there are two seperate political parties in Washington opposed to each other?
No, if a second party does offer some opposition, the corporate funding to that party is cut off. That's what happened to Gore when he opposed Bush's war plans and that is why he really chose not to run.
When he spoke aganist the war, his money source was eliminated. No Democrat can oppose the Bush war and the promoters of Sharon's war and expect to run for president as a democrat. The Democratic party now must follow the same corporate criminals as the Republicans so what difference does it make.
posted on December 29, 2002 11:37:38 PM
I think that that is the best tactic available to bring about a universal objection to this irresponsible use of the military by the little conqueror. The draft was the primary reason for the eventual general objection to the Vietnam war by the people. Rangel is no fool.
posted on December 30, 2002 11:02:33 AM
KRS - Hope you are right and I am wrong, but don't think it will work. The poor will be sent to combat and the rich will serve where their dainty butts are safe for the most part.
posted on December 30, 2002 12:57:24 PM
In conjunction with REAMOND's link above, here is a link to a page where you can download the three volumes for FREE!
This is also a good time to plug one of my favorite web sites on the Internet: Project Gutenberg at http://promo.net/pg/ .
"Project Gutenberg is the Internet's oldest producer of FREE electronic books (eBooks or eTexts)."
"What books will I find in Project Gutenberg?"
"Project Gutenberg is the brainchild of Michael Hart, who in 1971 decided that it would be a really good idea if lots of famous and important texts were freely available to everyone in the world. Since then, he has been joined by hundreds of volunteers who share his vision."
"Now, more than thirty years later, Project Gutenberg has the following figures (as of November 8th 2002): 203 New eBooks released during October 2002, 1975 New eBooks produced in 2002 (they were 1240 in 2001) for a total of 6267 Total Project Gutenberg eBooks. 119 eBooks have been posted so far by Project Gutenberg of Australia."
"Click here for the full Project Gutenberg story!"
I've been redistributing PG's freely distributable books WITHOUT ADVERTISMENTS OR SPAM (just a simple reminder that they do survive on donations alone) since BBS days early in the late 1980's and early 1990's and now, over some file sharing networks.
Profiteers have sprung up on the Internet (a shameless notion, that) and they take PG books and repackage them so that you have to buy them, like Microsoft and Hallmark and others. Don't bother with that nonsense: get the books that you want for FREE at the links above.
I now stop shamelessly promoting a favorite web site of mine and thank the thread author for his or her understanding.
posted on December 30, 2002 01:22:58 PM
I do not like the Draft. It was a bad choice that forced poor young men into service where quite often they were abused. This suggestion for upcoming legislation by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York is no better than submitting legisliation for Press Gangs or to make Shang-hai'ing legal.
Instead, as I've mentioned before, I'd rather that every able-bodied and even those not so able bodied young person be required to enter either Millitary Service, or the Police, or a Foreign Service program; such programs as President Kennedy proposed, or local Community Serrvice for a period not less than two (2) years. I would furthermore have that tied as a requirement to Citizenship and obtaining one's Majority.
But pure, compulsory servitude in the millitary alone is a raw deal! Let's send Bush's daughters first into combat on the front lines with this new legislation!
posted on December 30, 2002 03:01:21 PM
Thanks for the book link. Have not been there in quite awhile.
Consider this question.
How would we feel about the American Revolution and the country it produced if instead of volunteers and paid soldiers the founding fathers had press ganged the colonists into fighting and shot those that would not go along the same way so many of the African political movements are doing today - even forcing children into combat at gun point?
How is it different after a country is firmly established? Does it confer such a legitimacy that the state owns the person?
The declaration of independance says the government gets it's just power from the consent of the governed, but I don't see any consent in a draft no matter if it is the US or Angola doing the drafting.
In fact it is not unrelated that very few are voting anymore. I take that as a statement that there are no choices there that they can consent to, and by that standard the present government has lost the consent of the vast majority. They are tolerated not supported.
posted on December 30, 2002 06:56:13 PM
I just watched him argue his position on cable. He claims that the millitary gives young people the opportunities and pay, but it discriminates because you have to be a high school graduate to enter. His plan would be to force unwilling people into service so that those without any education could take advantage of what the millitary has to offer. Sorta like Quoats, but only for those who never bothered to read or write.
posted on December 30, 2002 07:53:50 PM
If we need to put the brakes on Bush & Co., there are better ways to do it than with a mandatory draft. Like a mandatory VOTE, for instance.
Yes, it is like putting out fire with gasoline. I'm against it.
posted on December 30, 2002 09:28:29 PM
He would force those without an education to go in the military and force them to straighten out huh? I guess being subject to military discipline they could be forced to stop being a stupid slackard or they'd be court martialed and thrown in the brig.
The fellows in the military responsible for turning civilians into soldiers would be as thrilled with that duty as the fellows who would have to have this mob behind them with loaded weapons as they go into battle.
If the material is not there to make it in civilian life they sure aren't going to benefit from the military. What they could do to the military I shudder to think.
It would result in a two tiered system like the Iraqies have - Republican Guards/camel herders.
posted on December 30, 2002 10:08:29 PM
When the Draft was ended and an all-volunteer service was top be put in its place, there were many nay-sayers in the millitary. They were afraid that no one would want to join. But the military actually benefitted enormously from this. No longer could a person with a chip on his or her shoulder complain about how they got forced into duty - you volunteered for it and that's YOUR fault! The amount of brig time went down and because you had willing volunteers, you could train them to do very sophisticated work and they would try to be professionals at it. A far flung cry from the bad old days of pressed service.
First, the courts take away retired military's medical benefits that they were promised. Then, press gangs forcing unwilling people into the millitary to feed the War machines. All this Satan Loves and Bush Drools over. It is Evil with a capital 'E' IMO.
posted on December 31, 2002 05:43:30 AM"He would force those without an education to go in the military and force them to straighten out huh? I guess being subject to military discipline they could be forced to stop being a stupid slackard or they'd be court martialed and thrown in the brig.
[i]"The fellows in the military responsible for turning civilians into soldiers would be as thrilled with that duty as the fellows who would have to have this mob behind them with loaded weapons as they go into battle.
If the material is not there to make it in civilian life they sure aren't going to benefit from the military"[/i].
What silly thinking - the refutation is all around you today, probably within your own family.
But the how of it's working isn't the point is it? It's the universal personalization of these "wars" - that the sons and daughters(?) of the complacent non voting public would be taken from them and placed into peril might be just the thing to finally raise them to object with their votes and voices. It worked last time and could again.
A universal mandatory vote is a good idea I think, Steve, but it'll never happen. Even bush is wary enough to realize that a person forced to vote would be most likely to vote against the incumbant who made him do it.
posted on December 31, 2002 06:12:47 AM
So if the way to fix it when it is somewhat broken is to bust it all the way so it has to be replaced what can the average joe who is not a Congressman do to push it over the edge? Practical ideas?
You may be right KRS. I admit the capacity for sillyness but I honestly felt it sounded absurd to me. You might whip a bunch of nogoodniks into a picture of discipline but it would break down the moment they had to act independantly and not under close watch.
posted on December 31, 2002 07:20:47 AM"You might whip a bunch of nogoodniks into a picture of discipline but it would break down the moment they had to act independantly and not under close watch"
Well, without entering into a discussion of the efficacy of military training regimens I can say that I am a walking talking (thank God) testimonial for them, and that there are legions of like examples throughout the land.
It was the "bringing home" of the Vietnam experience through media as well as bodybag which held large sway in the mobilization of
the voting public toward stopping U.S. participation there. It simply became politically unpopular to support our involvement there and that unpopularity made that war a platform in every politician's battery of promises. Nixon was elected in large portion because he promised to end it and if he, the corporate envoy par excellence, could see the writing on the wall perhaps even the current dumbass could. No politician can continue forever to do what the people don't want and a draft could well move people to object to the current fun and games. I'm sure that this is what the Rangell guy is after and his selling points as listed by borillar are only to convince the hawks that the idea could be sold to the public.
posted on December 31, 2002 08:30:44 AM
Rangel is considering a run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2004. He's like any other politician, he wants news coverage.
I seriously doubt there will be a need for a draft anytime soon. Could happen but I believe if the US gets in over our heads there will be many, just like in the Vietnam war, who will volunteer to fight for their country.
Some interesting links to facts about the drafted vs. volunteered in Vietnam, about the race of who was killed, etc. Anyone can do a google search and find the facts on many websites.
Vietnam War Deaths by Race, Etnicity and Natl Origin
Enlisted men who died in V'nam - blacks made up 14.01% of the total - If officer casualties are added, the black % is reduced to 12.5 of all causualties. http://members.aol.com/WarLibrary/vwc10.htm
Vietnam War Casualties by Volunteer or Drafted
63% of V'nam enlisted casualites were volunteers. If Officers are added almost 70% of those who died in V'nam were volunteers http://members.aol.com/WarLibrary/vwc8.htm
USMC/Vietnam Facts - Helicopter Assoc This link discusses the Myths vs. the facts about V'Nam.
One myth was: Most V'Nam veterans were drafted. Fact is, they state, 2/3 of the men who served in V'Nam were volunteers. Approx. 70% of those killed were volunteers. In WW11 2/3 of the men who served were drafted.
posted on December 31, 2002 08:53:31 AM
I bow to your greater experience krs. I know I have a bit of a warped perspective. I have had people systematically beat me until I couldn't stand to alter my beliefs and it did not work at all - it simply made me distrust any coersive way of dealing with people. All I could think of while being pounded was how I would deal with them later in retribution. Never how to appease them. But my mother always said I was horribly pig headed.
That's real interesting about the number of volunteers. Much greater than I would have guessed. I have to wonder if the reasons for the war really made sense to them or if it was a general willingness to support any action their superiors found needed. I mean the whole thing was never a direct threat to the US - it all depended on the political domino theory of a progressive threat between communism and democracy. There was never any threat that North Vietnam were going to pull a boat up to the beach in California and invade except in a politician's hysterical imaigination. Sort of like the fear of mass insanity and mob chaos in the streets from smoking killer weed.
[ edited by gravid on Dec 31, 2002 09:08 AM ]
posted on December 31, 2002 09:32:25 AMI have to wonder if the reasons for the war really made sense to them or if it was a general willingness to support any action their superiors found needed.
For the friends we had that volunteered, they believed our troops already there needed more support. Of those who returned home, some felt like our country had deserted them by opposing the war while they were there fighting for it. Others, over the years, wished they'd never volunteered. Who knows.
I mean the whole thing was never a direct threat to the US...
I agree with that statement. I've long questioned our need to fight other's battles for them. But can see both sides of the issues. This war on terrorism is different, imo, because 9-11 changed things. Not at all like Vietnam was. Kind of like us staying out of WW11 until Pearl Harbor was attacked. This is why I believe so many gave their support to Bush in dealing with Afghanistan. And many still do in our continuing efforts in the War On Terrorism.
posted on December 31, 2002 10:19:45 AM
Thanks for the insight.
I understand the value of lotalty - if it is deserved.
Being an only child and not a joiner I never valued it much.
Never got all wrapped up[ in the rah rah school spirit either.
Grown men that run around with school emblems on everything amuse me.
posted on December 31, 2002 12:22:45 PM
Thanks for the illuminating links, Linda. That does clear up some misconceptions that I've had. I experienced the War there as a child, not as an armed adult, so my perspective is a bit different.
Of interest to me is the Whites/Blacks figures. While not all figures quoted exactly match each other, blacks were not overwhelmingly used as cannon fodder.
While General Westmorland likely is as reputable as the claims make, I am not sure how he derives at the quotes that he makes, nor does he point out the true source of his comments about facts and figures to make his points.
Still, it was also interesting to note that more than two-thirds of those killed or casualties were volunteers. I recall that many young people did go and volunteer just so that they might get into a non-combat role. I knew one guy in the Navy in the late '70's who had joined up with the notion that the US Navy doesn't fight land wars. Turned out, he was one of those riverboat gunners! LOL! He lived to tell some pretty gruesome stories.
Still, I think that to bring back the Draft is plain silly. If you want to get people to vote, you don't threaten to send their kids away. Heck! I know a lot of parents that would be *glad* to get their kids forced into the military!
What is needed is to actually fight this ground war and let the media cover it fairly. Let the piles of bodies start coming home, the casualties come home crippled or insane, the media show loved ones being blown to little pieces on the battlefield. THAT is how you get Americans interested in politics! THAT is how you get people to get out and to vote! And it won't be about "the economy, stupid!" either.
posted on December 31, 2002 01:03:35 PM
Not gonna happen anymore. Gore on the dinner time news was a big part of opposition to the Vietnam war. Only way a newsman is going to get access to the battlefield now is if he rides with the opposition.
posted on December 31, 2002 01:11:44 PM"What is needed is to actually fight this ground war and let the media cover it fairly"
This and the draft are part and parcel. The percentages involved in Vietnam aren't relevant to anything here as it was the 'in the face' nature of the experience which was instrumental in stopping support for the war. It doesn't matter why it offends, it only matter that it does. Remember that thousands of young men AND their families were forced to examine how they felt about the activity extant. It was divisive for many, some left the country, some were imprisoned, some went and served, but all were involved. Today that involvement is lacking. No one really has to come to grips with their feelings about these war activities - they can simply go about their lives as though none of it is happening at all. Some are dumb enough to believe that it's a war against terrorism and support it. But with a great attention getting turmoil fewer people can ignore the issues which bring the turmoil about. A turmoil of blood, one of cost, another of unwilling service; all are good - the more the better if they serve to bring about a questioning of the petty tyrant. That's all Rangel is trying to do.
posted on December 31, 2002 03:19:04 PM
I'm seeing your viewpoint more and more.
A prediction. If the public needs to be motivated by another attack to back the war time president it will be allowed to happen.
Frankly I wouldn't be in times square or at the parades timorrow for all the tea in China. It seems too tempting what with all the TV cameras set up already to record any attack for maximum effect.
posted on December 31, 2002 04:28:25 PM"A prediction. If the public needs to be motivated by another attack to back the war time president it will be allowed to happen.
Yep, unfortunately that's going to be the only avenue available. He's incompetent and he's allowed a group of powerful right wing whackos to dictate every policy move from the start. The blustering during his first trip abroad set the tone and was scripted to further anger elements already unhappy with US involvement. The 9/11 attack shouldn't have surprised anyone in the intelligence community and he certainly wasn't surprised by it - you can see that on the tape at that schoolhouse. They set it up as surely as Rossevelt set up Pearl Harbor, leaving almost no other choice but as strong a statement as those arab buffoons could manage.
Now with the congress entirely in his hand he has to have either answers for the domestic issues or a return to the only glory he's known, made up and phony though it is. It's not hard to make your prediction, Gravid.
The problem is that the Bush Camp is highly aware about what the media did for the Viet-Nam money maker for Corporations. They are allowing the media in, as Linda pointed out, but only in a limited capacity, seeing what is to be shown only -- no freelance reporting allowed.
Personally, those four reporters who got ambushed in Afghanistan were off on their own folowing thier own leads to news stories. Funny how those sorts of news reporters got killed there, but regular correspondants reporting the news as released from the White House were always fine, no matter how "dangerous" it was for them? Hmm.
