As IF!

He's been beating the conscription drum for awhile, though mostly for the VFW vets whom he can count as supporters. Since the towers fell, Rangel seems to think this is what's needed to help (non-elderly) U.S. citizens *believe* in their country again, and in turn, for the world to look up to us, and perhaps call the younger folk the Next Greatest Generation.

Rangel's like the kid who'd grab a cafeteria tray at school, strike a dramatic pose, and tell everyone he was Captain America.

Jeez.

Makes me happy to be old.

The man is an idiot.

Actually, I am not all that opposed to the idea of national service (yeah, particularly now that I am too old for it). I like the concept that it's not necessarily military service, which is an interesting twist. However, I don't trust the US administration not to use it as a way to send troops off to exert their will against any number of areas in the world instead of what the term "National Service" should be - service to the country.

Yeah, I'm with dg. If it were a good thing, it would be okay.

Isn't this the norm in many countries such as Germany? I like the idea of giving back something for all the benefits of living in this society, and maybe even teach them a thing or two about cooperating with people of different classes or races.

If it were a good thing, it would be okay.
When is that ever not true?

You know, when I was 19 I thought a national service requirement was a great idea. I still do, but Congress hasn't written a rational law in at least 15 years, so I'm sure they can screw up this idea, too.

Wait, so ... there's zero chance of this being passed, right? Because I don't particularly want to leave the country and renounce my citizenship.

He knows it's not going to pass. It's sort of a protest bill. It's a stance against the war, Rangel's position being that if conscription had been in effect, we would've never gone to war in Iraq. I tend to think he's right.

Just assuming the program didn't include any options such as Americorps, wouldn't mandatory military service give even the most hawkish politician pause before committing to a pointless war? It's not all bad.

Good point pi. Less votes for the warmongers.

I think there are many countries that have mandatory military service. Israel pops into my head.

I don't half mind the idea in theory, but I don't know how I would feel if it were a reality. I have two boys.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm against mandatory any kind of service, and particularly against service for "homeland security" (i.e. destroying other nations). The government doesn't have the right. I know this won't pass, but even if it did, it wouldn't be a "good thing".

If this had any real support with the Dems, I would vote straight Republican in response. This is not an answer in any way, shape or form and even as a stunt it makes me want to punch Rangel in the mouth.

Rangel is an ass.

The one time I had the pleasure of meeting him, he was having a torrid affair with the sound of his own voice.

I do not like the word "mandatory" in any context. Even if the government mandated that I cuddle puppies while sipping appletinis, I would oppose it.

*smiles b/c jrossi exists*

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service

Makes me happy to be old.

You're over 42? You don't look that old.

hellbient has it right, from what I've heard. The point is not to pass this bill, but to show what's in store if the war gets out of hand. He wants to show conservatives that the public isn't as behind the war as they like to think it is; and he wants to show the public what's down the road if the war machine is supported.

Yup--it's to make the warmongers look bad. You want a war? Fine, but let us draft your kids. Don't like that, huh?

On a different note, the THOMAS website rules, huh?

You're over 42? You don't look that old.

Do I look dyslexic?

I believe he's brought this up for a vote before and even HE voted against it. It's total posturing, a "most Americans aren't sacrificing for this war" yadda yadda kind of thing, which I agree with, but there has to be a better way of pointing that fact out.

Yes, he's done it before, twice. It was never brought to the floor either time, so there weren't any votes.

Yeah, it's a protest bill he knows isn't getting any traction this term last or (maybe) next.

There are a number of excellent points. A draft will in theory distribute military service more equitably, although there will of course be deferments that over time will expand until even Dick Cheney can not go to war and be a warmonger.

There is also the idea that more equitable military eligibility will mean more public concern over frivolous wars. I'm not sure this follows as strictly as liberals see it, though, because there are many Americans who "vote against self-interest" be it taxes or product safety or whatnot.

The one that's rarely mentioned but that I think is important is the Starship Troopers effect. If you go several generations with an all-volunteer military, I worry we could develop a military subculture that sees itself as the "real patriots" and is much more conservative and nationalistic than the public. I want a military that reflects the public, not sees itself above it.

The ridiculousness of Dem Underground etc. posters going OMGDRAFT! is that the GOP does not want a draft. They want to perpetuate the idea that we are fighting the war on terror without major sacrifices. Volunteer soldiers may be used as examples of patriotism without question, to keep dissidents in line. What's more, a draft would require the advice and consent of Congress to boost troop strength.

I think the standard for whether we go to war or not should be if the president, his administration, and the entire congress are willing to lead the charge.