Dems working for the Man.

[Parker2112]

Ready to send your children off to war? For Dems?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5741

Folks, its time to start getting suspicious of your party.

[Parker2112]

Let's get a move on this American Empire...

[LnGrrrR]

So pretty much, a draft. Doubt this one will pass.

[Parker2112]

Proof positive that both parties are fucked. Proof positive that Obama is a fraud. Proof positive that voters are asleep at the wheel.

Is this being carried by any major news source?

[Winehole23]

So much proof positive for such plain insights might have been overkill, dude.

[Parker2112]

So much proof positive for such plain insights might have been overkill, dude.

There are always a handful that need to hear it...even if those few will likely never get it.

[Winehole23]

There are always a handful that need to hear it...even if those few will likely never get it.Does overstating your case make people more, or less receptive to your POV would you say?

[LnGrrrR]

It probably isn't being talked about because there's no way it should pass.

[DarrinS]

Charles Rangel is such a dick.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/read-h-r-5741-carefully-the-new-and-more-undemocratic-charlie-rangel-push-for-mandatory-servitudemilitary-civilian-draft-for-men-and-women-ages-18-42/





WASHINGTON – Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.

“What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield,” Congressman Rangel said. “The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people’s children.

“The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America’s children should share the risk of being placed in harm’s way.

“In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft,” Congressman Rangel said.

The bill, which the Congressman first introduced in 2003 as the nation prepared for the invasion of Iraq, and offered again in 2004, 2006, and 2007, provides for:

• A national service obligation–either military or civilian–for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.

• Defines “national service” as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security.

• Give the President the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

• Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.

• Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.

• Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.

• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.

BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME

Rangel said that he was not challenging President Obama’s handling of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, conflicts with few options that the President had inherited from the previous Administration.

“I support the President’s intentions to withdraw our troops, but I’d like to see it happen sooner. In my view, no additional tax dollars should be appropriated for any reason except to bring home our brave and exhausted young men and women. The loss of 5,500 lives and 38,000 wounded is enough.”

A combined total of 160,000 Americans are currently deployed. More than 2 million men and women have served in the two conflicts, nearly half of them for more than one tour of duty. And because of a shortage of manpower, some of them have been deployed as many as six times.

“The 3.3 million military households, representing only one percent of American families, have become a virtual military class who are unfairly carrying the burden of war,” Congressman Rangel said. “If there were a draft, there would be no shortage of troops to fill the ranks without repeatedly deploying the same exhausted troops over and over.”

So far, the numbers of casualties may not be as high, or as shocking, as those suffered in previous wars. But the physical and mental damage to individual soldiers is not only heartbreaking but is taking place at rates never before seen in modern warfare.

The reason is that advances in medical technology have allowed more wounded soldiers to survive the loss of limbs, and serious head and brain injuries. “The result is a practical epidemic of cases of post traumatic stress disorder, suicides, and family disruptions,” Congressman Rangel said.

Again in this war, troops recruited from large urban centers with high unemployment and from economically depressed small towns, are carrying the heaviest burden of service. Enlistment bonuses are as high as $40,000. Incentives for reenlistment range from $1,000 for the lowest-skilled privates to $27,000 for staff sergeants with special skills. Combined with the economic recession these incentives have produced record-breaking recruiting results this year.

“The question of whether we need a universal compulsory military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of its young men and women in harm’s way,” Congressman Rangel said.

“We make decisions about war without worry over who fights them. Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders,” Congressman Rangel said.

[LnGrrrR]

So, like I thought, it never had an intention of being passed, but was put up by Rangel in order to see who would and would not vote for it.

And I don't quite think it's a "dick" move to suggest that if you support the war, then you should at least be willing to help out. I don't go so far as to say that you should be willing to fight or help directly, but too many people call for war seemingly don't have a real look at the men and women fighting it, as if they were just numbers without families.

[Parker2112]

Does overstating your case make people more, or less receptive to your POV would you say?

I dunno, it seems to work on the national political arena...may not fly with this crowd though.

[Parker2112]

So, like I thought, it never had an intention of being passed, but was put up by Rangel in order to see who would and would not vote for it.

And I don't quite think it's a "dick" move to suggest that if you support the war, then you should at least be willing to help out. I don't go so far as to say that you should be willing to fight or help directly, but too many people call for war seemingly don't have a real look at the men and women fighting it, as if they were just numbers without families.

Thats best case scenario. But worst case is your "test" legislation passes, or at least puts it into the realm of debate and gains support.

Its still a dick move IMO.

[panic giraffe]

the fact that it's sponsored by rangel pretty much means this will never pass. I wish it would though. I think we all owe our country, plus there's less of a chance of being dragged into another quagmire like the last two wars when everyone has a common interest.

[DarrinS]

So, like I thought, it never had an intention of being passed, but was put up by Rangel in order to see who would and would not vote for it.

And I don't quite think it's a "dick" move to suggest that if you support the war, then you should at least be willing to help out. I don't go so far as to say that you should be willing to fight or help directly, but too many people call for war seemingly don't have a real look at the men and women fighting it, as if they were just numbers without families.



Their sons served.

http://tdaait.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/usa-elections-mccain-palin.jpg

[spursncowboys]

Weren't the Dems trying to start a draft in the early 00's?
I think the idea is this would philosophically keep us out of wars. Rather, I believe, it would lessen the quality of our combat arms. That is another thing, would you put the draftees in combat arms or put them to fill the support roles?

[Parker2112]

Their sons served.

http://tdaait.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/usa-elections-mccain-palin.jpg

Dude, GTFO with that partisan b/s.

[Parker2112]

Fuck your republican heros

[ChumpDumper]

This is pretty old news.

[Wild Cobra]

Proof positive that Obama is a fraud. Proof positive that [democrat] voters are asleep at the wheel.

Proof positive that those who voted for the demonrats were snookered.

[Wild Cobra]

It probably isn't being talked about because there's no way it should pass.
I agree. That amounts to involuntary servitude.

Oh well...

What can one expect from a group of Marxists?

[Wild Cobra]

Remember when the left was trying to say republicans were returning the draft, but the facts revealed the only sponsors of the legislation were all democrats?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, we should open this from time to time and see who adds their names as co-sponsors:

Library of Congress; Thomas; Bill Summary & Status; 111th Congress (2009 - 2010); H.R.5741 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.5741:)

[LnGrrrR]

Their sons served.

http://tdaait.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/usa-elections-mccain-palin.jpg

I wasn't pointing out anyone specifically. Just saying, if you're clamoring for war, I at least expect you to talk with a few soldiers and families who have been in combat, and look at the long-term effects. Too many pundits/politicians/journalists don't do that.

[LnGrrrR]

Weren't the Dems trying to start a draft in the early 00's?
I think the idea is this would philosophically keep us out of wars. Rather, I believe, it would lessen the quality of our combat arms. That is another thing, would you put the draftees in combat arms or put them to fill the support roles?

I think it would both lessen the amount of wars (assuming rich kids couldn't buy out of it) AND make our service less effective. I think the whole 'national service' thing speaks to putting them in a "war-fighting" role without actually being a military member, perhaps working at a factory at home or repairing infrastructure.

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't pointing out anyone specifically. Just saying, if you're clamoring for war, I at least expect you to talk with a few soldiers and families who have been in combat, and look at the long-term effects. Too many pundits/politicians/journalists don't do that.
And recently... Damn... which demonrat was it... I forget.

Anyway, she is claiming that serving in congress is equivalent to serving in the military!

[Stringer_Bell]

It probably isn't being talked about because there's no way it should pass.

The simple fact that Charlie Rangel was the one to introduce this bill ensures it will not pass. In fact, I believe he's done something similar before to "bring to light the actual cost it takes to prolong US strategic dominance around the world." Not a real quote, but I heard something like that on the news once with regard to "required service legislation."

I'm not sure why people are shocked about something like this being discussed, it's been tossed around since Obama was campaigning (not military service, but the civil community service commitment). I don't think it's a bad thing, other countries have military requirements with far less of a defense budget and foreign "assets and interests" to protect. If we still plan on being the big dogs in the yard, we need better borders and less strain on the military cycling in/out of combat zones - which means more bodies in boots. Obviously, I'm not in favor of "drafted" persons fighting wars, but we need to think about how we plan to sustain our dominance on both our homeland and foreign land.

Also, why are people so scared about new wars? Where the fuck else can we invade? :hat

[Parker2112]

The simple fact that Charlie Rangel was the one to introduce this bill ensures it will not pass. In fact, I believe he's done something similar before to "bring to light the actual cost it takes to prolong US strategic dominance around the world." Not a real quote, but I heard something like that on the news once with regard to "required service legislation."

I'm not sure why people are shocked about something like this being discussed, it's been tossed around since Obama was campaigning (not military service, but the civil community service commitment). I don't think it's a bad thing, other countries have military requirements with far less of a defense budget and foreign "assets and interests" to protect. If we still plan on being the big dogs in the yard, we need better borders and less strain on the military cycling in/out of combat zones - which means more bodies in boots. Obviously, I'm not in favor of "drafted" persons fighting wars, but we need to think about how we plan to sustain our dominance on both our homeland and foreign land.

Also, why are people so scared about new wars? Where the fuck else can we invade? :hat

Man this is sheep talk. Fuck a bunch of warring. We are almost bankrupt as it is. We dont need to be the big dogs in the yard, that shit is for men with little dicks to fight over...

If you want security, keep the service men and women at home, and work on the economy.

[Stringer_Bell]

Man this is sheep talk. Fuck a bunch of warring. We are almost bankrupt as it is. We dont need to be the big dogs in the yard, that shit is for men with little dicks to fight over...

If you want security, keep the service men and women at home, and work on the economy.

It's not sheep talk, it's real talk. If this country wants to retain power, there must be sacrifice...and it could come from MANY places, but most often we sacrifice our military. The sheep don't weigh the costs, and everything has a cost when the rest of the world is waiting for you to fall. I'd rather consolidate our strength and bring everyone back from the Middle East and put manpower into building our people (communities) up before propping up big oil, banks, and greedy politicians who assume that because they send our military to war that they can speak for our military.

[SnakeBoy]

This thread makes me feel like I'm at a RATM concert.

[Nbadan]

Some of you are missing the point, it's real simple...let me spell it out for you...

Would you go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If your answer to that question is no, then you need to start supporting bringing ALL the troops home..

[Wild Cobra]

Some of you are missing the point, it's real simple...let me spell it out for you...

Would you go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If your answer to that question is no, then you need to start supporting bringing ALL the troops home..
Idiot.

Most things in life are not black or white. There are thousands of shades of gray between.

[CosmicCowboy]

Rangel's a fucking idiot. It's just political posturing and class warfare. His theory is if you start getting "rich" white kids killed/injured that "they" will want the war stopped.

It's all bullshit...notice the "Declaration of war" caveat? Hell the last time the US formally declared war was WWII.

[Wild Cobra]

Rangel's a fucking idiot. It's just political posturing and class warfare. His theory is if you start getting "rich" white kids killed/injured that "they" will want the war stopped.

It's all bullshit...notice the "Declaration of war" caveat? Hell the last time the US formally declared war was WWII.
I still haven't see anything requiring a formal declaration.

Have you?

[CosmicCowboy]

I still haven't see anything requiring a formal declaration.

Have you?

Oops, I got that from the article Darrin posted...


• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.


You are correct. The actual definition in the bill is a lot broader...


SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
(1) a declaration of war is in effect;
(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.
(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--
(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;
(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and
(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(d) Selection for Induction-
(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).
(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--
(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or
(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

[Winehole23]

Funny how all the originalists become gradualists when it comes to war powers.

[Winehole23]

Most things in life are not black or white. There are thousands of shades of gray between.This just in: Dracula prefers the taste of bottled water to blood. :p:

[Wild Cobra]

This just in: Dracula prefers the taste of bottled water to blood. :p:

Well, he gets by on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Truebloodintertitle.png

[Stringer_Bell]

This just in: Dracula prefers the taste of bottled water to blood. :p:

We're going to need a link, this is too big an assertion to just take your word on.