Possible draft

The Rangel bill was for an entirely different reason, and Rangel himself was very blunt about his reasons. The proposed bill was intended to make things personal for Congresscritters... to make them think twice about going to war because this time THEIR children would be in the regulars too.

The rumors about the draft Bush is considering for 2005 (I have yet to hear any official word but I'm long since past being surprised by anything that trained chimp wants or does) are because he wants more grunts for his 'war on terror' and he's so busy invading Iraq and planning other invasions (they've been talking about Syria and Iran since just after Iraq started.... prelude to admitting that there are no WMD's left in Iraq) that he needs more troops.

The concept of not invading anything that moves/has oil/etc and using our existing troops to concentrate on actually finding bin Laden seems to have escaped Our Fearless Leader for some reason.

Teeny (and everyone else who thinks this way),

this is exactly the reason we're doomed to a bipartisan presidential election. not because it's a wasted vote, but because of people who say, 'it will never matter, it's just taking away from someone who can actually win'.

this attitude will make sure that a third party doesn't have a chance.

if everyone would vote for who they would really want, instead of who they think is 'the lesser of two evils', then a third-party candidate COULD win! AND would have a good chance of doing so!

and think about that.. a vote for (insert third-party candidate here) is a wasted vote, so i'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils. WHAT!?!
..you really believe that's a good idea?!? if you had the choice of three child care centers and two of them had lots of money and support, but they were corrupt and unsafe.. then the third one was not as popular and didn't have as much finances.. would you still choose 'the lesser of two evils'???

sorry.. *breathe breathe* didn't mean to go off like that.. i'm sorry if that seemed offensive. i'm just so tired of this country being run by money and candidates being chosen by which one runs better 'mud-slinging' ads.
.. yuck

i was going to vote for Perot back in the day, thought about voting for Nader, and would look forward to Jesse Ventura running for pres in 2008.. but i will never vote for the puppets.

It is actually Democratic Party pols like Charley Rangel who are mostly pushing for the draft. From what I hear the Selective Service is due to activate on Monday, 8 November, and this time college students will be pulled first.

Cybin, I was specifically addressing Nader, who truly doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. If a CREDIBLE 3rd party candidate comes along, I could see myself voting for said candidate.

Actually not true. What dooms us to a two party election is the fact that we have an officially institutionalized two party system.

The only way a third party can be more than a spoiler in our system is to gain a huge amount of support while one of the established parties loses a huge amount of support. At this point a third party can replace one of the established parties.

Third party advocates like the Greens, the Libertarians and the Socialists need to understand that this is the United States, not the United Kingdom. We don't live in a coalition system. Let me repeat: We don't live in a coalition system. The difference between the two systems is largely one of priorities. A two party system like the one we have in the states is more stable overall. A coalition system, such as the one used in the UK, (in theory at least) forces greater consensus in the government and (again in theory) is easier to change if things get bad.

We have a system that legally establishes two parties and is set up to exclude others from seriously taking part. This gaurantees that at least one party will have a majority voice. Greens, Socialists, Libertarians and the various other third parties in this country need to realize this basic fact and stop screwing up elections that they can't win and wouldn't be able to actually get much of anything accomplished if they actually DID win.

1. i am a republican
2. we are not all war lovers
3. Stop labeling us as war lovers
4. Plenty of Democrats voted in favor of this war including Kerry
5. If u think they (the Democrats) were tricked/fooled into support well that doesnt say much for their intelligence.

Finally if u think Kerry is going to pull out of Iraq the minute he gets in Office well guess again.

"Ask not what my country can do for me but what i can do for my country"

I believe a democrat said that right?
He served.

We all should in some way.

PS fighting isnt the only way u can serve our armed forces!

Compulsory service for all citizens only works for a country that doesn't have a history of marching into any country they don't agree with that week.

IE It works in the Netherlands, Sweden, and so on because they simply don't fight wars.

The US has been in constant armed conflict with at least one group/nation since the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn't mind sitting it out until we can elect a leader that won't want to invade a country first for "terrorism", then for "they tried to kill my daddy", now for "regime change", and tomorrow for "oil".

LF

[/B]
Eh?

The last time we had a coalition government in the UK was in 1940. We have a first-past-the-post system here which has produced a duopoly of governing parties in exactly the same way as yours.

Are you thinking of the Proportional Representation system, widely used on the continent of Europe, where parties such as the Green Party do enjoy a disproportionately greater political influence relative to their mandates?



If Bush is re-elected, would the last person to leave the country please turn out the lights?

Democrats: The republicans want a draft! Evil! Bush is Evil! Drafts are evil!

Republicans: You guys are calling for a draft.

Democrats: That's different. Our draft is good. Your draft is evil.

It's been a while since you actually had a coalition, true.... but the system isn't explicitly two party the way ours is. (IE no majority and minority leaders, etc.)



Actually it's more along the lines of 'That's different.... we know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of our draft actually getting passed. We're just making a statement.'

The republicans, on the other hand, have a majority in congress and the white house.... the odds of them passing their draft, (and putting in phone calls to get THEIR children out of the infantry) are actually quite good.

Teeny - i think i understand your point about Nader. your position is that he wouldn't win; because he isn't the right man for the job, not because he wouldn't get enough votes. i think that's what you mean..
..and that if there were a third party candidate you believed had the ability to win by position/virtue/etc.. that you would vote for them, regardless of their chance to win by votes. yes?


generally speaking:

i think the government of the United States of America needs a complete overhaul..
..it has become a labyrinth of lies and deception. too many self-granted services (Congress keeps voting to give themself raises.. say what!?! who would vote against this???) ..just.. argh..

i can't go on about this anymore, it's too sad..

..can't we just get a president who wants to be president simply because he wants to help our country? ..it's not a Home-coming King (or Queen) competition!


disclaimer: i am not anti-american, nor do i support any such activity. i am against self-serving government officials who are there for personal gain, instead of for the greater good.

Q. If it's mostly Democrats saying this, why is the Republican supporting this the first thing mentioned in the article? (Also the only senator mentioned unless I missed something.)

Corwin: But what statement are the Democrats trying to make by proposing this? (Besides what seems to be a politically motivated attempt to make Iraq look like another Vietnam so Kerry gets elected.)

Well I saw this coming before Bush was elected....he is just a front for a bunch of right wingers that have an agenda....for one his Dad...

Many ppl believe that Bush coming into office was the direct cuz of 911....I believe this myself.....I think they knew it would happen. Its all over oil.......thats the bottom line. We have no busy being over there. My pop owns oil wells...and instead of buying the oil here and doing a better job of not being so wasteful....then the proposed draft would be moot....

GW Senior was apart of the Skull n Bones.....this group is a group that dates back to the beginning of the Masons and Thomas Jefferson.....they are more of an occult....if you want to stereo type.....and its all about power and money. The Bushes have long been a family with Oil Well history....it really pisses me off that the fact of the matter of Bushes office, the attacks on the US, National Security problems, and the deaths of civilians and our troops have been nothing but for Oil.....but they smile in your face giving you all this other mish mash that its "really" about. I like Robin Williams take on what we should about it.....I will post it...I will have to find it. Its hillarious...but Im behind it 100%.....

It wont happen

John Kerry is a member of Skull and Bones, too. Bill Clinton likely would have been as well if they let poor white trash be members.That thing that is making the rounds of the mailing lists and is, for some reason being attributed to Robin Williams isn't his, if you go to snopes.com and check it out.

poor white trash??

David, for shame! Those of us that resemble that remark prefer poverty-stricken caucasin hillfolk!

For shame .

Zana

Zana I know you beat your husband every time you get likkered up and wash your clothes at the carwash, but you are too educated and have too many of the teeth you were born with to be white trash. I was under the impression that you were a chainsmokin truck-drivin redneck hillbilly, and that is quite another fish.

Rangel has been pretty up front about his belief that the famous war hawk attitude of the Republicans is largely related to the fact that it isn't them and their children in the line of fire. (Hence the alternate nickname 'chicken hawk.') The proposed draft would change this.

Is this true though? I don't imagine seeing many Democrat's sons going to war either. (I don't know the actual statistics, but I'm sure it's money related and Dems aren't exactly poor.)

Republican politician's children may not be going to war, but isn't this a double standard to say it's just the Republican kids getting off? I'm not a Rep, but that doesn't seem right to me.

Oh and.. Skull n Bones...rofl

All for the oil!

I really have to question the whole idea of reviving the draft. Rangel believes that a new draft would make rich Republican types think twice about being so trigger happy. However, the rich kids in question can do exactly what Bush did, and never see any actual combat. Its just a matter of using daddy's connections, and before you know it, you and the other rich kids are doing light duty here.

Sad but true truth is that a new draft would send even more poor folks to war. No connections in high places, can't afford to run off to Canada. Its either war or jail.

Eh.. not to be a dump on it or anything but, I've always said I wanted to be in the Marines, the only difference on that part would be is as if we were defending ourselves. But seeing since now we seem to be doing the attacking and not defending... (like we should be doing) I will not join in for someone else's cause. True that its to help the United States, but I will not pick up arms unless I'm threatened directly (theres others ways of defending against terrorism rather than going out hunting for them, ex: increase the educational budget so we can have a lot of researchers to develop technological defense utilities to deal with these situations) rather than just go out for political gain.

Actually I think Rangel's being a little naieve. I agree with the sentiment, but I doubt it would actually work. Pat Robertson, George W, etc all got out of combat duty even with the draft enabled.

And on the other point.... Kerry's educational deferment ran out, and he served. If Clinton's had run out, he'd have probably been drafted.... and with no daddy in the senate, he'd probably have ended up in Vietnam. If you look at the overall records.... the Democrats come out looking much better by a longshot.

With all due respect, I don't think it's fair to compare Republican 'kids' who have a parent in congress with Democrat 'kids' who don't. If we're comparing Rep 'kids' with Dem 'kids' who both don't have parents in congress or who both do, that's better.

I don't really care too much about what happened 30 years ago unless there's something really bad to consider, and that goes for both Bush and Kerry. Bottom line is, if your parents are "connected" and/or rich, you're probably going to get special favors. It takes a person like Pat Tillman to turn down that kind of thing, and those people are pretty damn rare.

Teeny: C'mon, you know Clinton would have been a hippie! (Then again he didn't inhale so maybe he was against that sort of thing hehe. )

I pulled strings with Senator Biden (a Democrat) to get my son into a service academy next year, and my cousin just joined the US Marine Corps after graduating from VMI. Not all Democrats shirk their duty and not all republicans are warmongers, so it's wrong to generalize.

Garoad, I think you misunderstood my post a little. I wasn't trying to compare Republican kids with Democrat kids. I was trying to explain a flaw in Rangel's logic. My point was that priviliged kids, be they Democrats, Republicans or Stonecutters will have either a way out of the draft or easy reserve duty.