I don't want to go to war, so I'm sending you instead...
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/opinion/31RANG.html"; target="_blank">Rangel wants to restart draft</a>
Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York has voted against the resolution to fight Iraq if they do not comply with U.N. resolutions requiring they end programs for weapons of mass destruction.
His solution now that the resolution has passed? Well let's just restart the draft and so now volunteers aren't the only ones who have to go.
This line of reasoning is alwasy amazing to me. We saw it here in the thread about lottery winnings and taxes. Basically a belief that there is no self-determinism, just shared responsibility.
Rangel is doing this out of pure spite. The last time we had military action in Iraq, the actual fighting lasted less than a week. The same naysayers who swore we would have are head handed to us in Afghanistan are now swearing it will cost us thousands of troops and lives in Iraq.
Forget the fact that the weapons that ended the war in a week are now a decade better.
Also forget that we have an all volunteer force, since we are going and I don't like it, I'm going to try to scare the hell out of you about it by threatening to make your son go nonvoluntarily.
It's okay I am sure all Republicans will be "son killers" 30-40 years from now according to Democrats who will forget that Rangel offered up this resolution.
Nick
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York has voted against the resolution to fight Iraq if they do not comply with U.N. resolutions requiring they end programs for weapons of mass destruction.
His solution now that the resolution has passed? Well let's just restart the draft and so now volunteers aren't the only ones who have to go.
This line of reasoning is alwasy amazing to me. We saw it here in the thread about lottery winnings and taxes. Basically a belief that there is no self-determinism, just shared responsibility.
Rangel is doing this out of pure spite. The last time we had military action in Iraq, the actual fighting lasted less than a week. The same naysayers who swore we would have are head handed to us in Afghanistan are now swearing it will cost us thousands of troops and lives in Iraq.
Forget the fact that the weapons that ended the war in a week are now a decade better.
Also forget that we have an all volunteer force, since we are going and I don't like it, I'm going to try to scare the hell out of you about it by threatening to make your son go nonvoluntarily.
It's okay I am sure all Republicans will be "son killers" 30-40 years from now according to Democrats who will forget that Rangel offered up this resolution.
Nick
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
Comments
I don't trust/believe politicians of ANY stripe, to be completely honest, but particularly higher-ranking ones of the opposition party ALWAYS spike my Doubt-O-Meter? when they do something like this.
I think they'd love to build disdain for Bush by having the draft reinstated on HIS watch (since it'll tie in really nicely with the whole "Bush's Oil War" horseshit) and, as expected, it'll slip everyone's mind (and not be pointed out by the media) that it was some convoluted, underhanded idea proposed by a Democrat.
When/if young Americans are shipped back to America in body bags and so forth, the Democrats will IMMEDIATELY raise their voices even louder and go "SEE! Your sons and daughters are dying...for what?!?" and, like everything else, make this into another "us vs. them", ugly and divisive bickering point.
We wouldn't have to have a draft if money wasn't wasted by The Man, military budgets weren't completely stupid and out-of-whack and true, living wages were paid to our already wonderful VOLUNTEER force (not just the top idiot brass and D.C. paper pushers...I mean the grunts and the people doing the heavy-lifting, bleeding, training, dodging bullets, etc. THAT'S the military, to me).
Many longtime military members are leaving in huge numbers, and that's a shame.
And just to be factually accurate, Congress did NOT tie military action against Iraq to their compliance with UN resolutions, or any other contingencies.
<strong>It's about the same level of political showmanship as the Republican proposals you hear every so often to pay taxes on election day as one lump sum. Or for that matter the desire to keep taxes high on the lower and middle classes so everyone hates taxes. The difference is that Rangel's bill will never pass.
And just to be factually accurate, Congress did NOT tie military action against Iraq to their compliance with UN resolutions, or any other contingencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is easy to see why someone with a liberal perspective would so easily consider death(possibly by fighting) and taxes the same thing.
BRussell, Republican proposals to help people understand what they pay in taxes is not the same as drafting someone to possibly go off to their death fighting.
Also very few people seem to have the financial understand to know exactly how much they do pay in taxes. Just about everytime someone I know buys a car, I go through the agreement and show them how much it actually cost them.
Car salespeople focus incessantly on what you can afford to pay per month. By doing this they can rip off about 90% of everyone out there. The government does much the same thing by taking out a percentage per paycheck for individuals instead of paying yearly or quarterly.
Now again back to the matter at hand. Does saying you might have to send in your taxes once per year really equal, we are going to draft your son against possibly your and his will and send him off to possibly die?
Now as for keeping taxes high on everyone. Republicans obviously try to lower taxes for everyone. Half the party supports a simple flat tax or simple slightly regressive tax.
As for taxing everyone, California is entirely Democratically controlled and we have a 30+ billion dollar budget deficit. (No tax cuts to try to blame either) Check back here in about 6 months and see if everyone does hate all the new taxes they will propose to cover the incessant spending they do.
I guess Dems consider working yourself to death to pay taxes the same thing as fighting to your death in a foreign land. They even propose to make them both involuntary... at least they are consistant right?
Nick
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
This line of reasoning is alwasy amazing to me. We saw it here in the thread about lottery winnings and taxes. Basically a belief that there is no self-determinism, just shared responsibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're completely off on the line of reasoning. He wants the President and Congress (all future generations of them as well) to be more cautious in their willingness to send our children overseas to fight.
His line of reasoning is that if more voters had an emotional stake in war, that would bring more balance to the decisions. If every congressman had thousands of voters with enlisted children there would be far fewer armchair quarterbacks/killers.
<strong>
You're completely off on the line of reasoning. He wants the President and Congress (all future generations of them as well) to be more cautious in their willingness to send our children overseas to fight.
His line of reasoning is that if more voters had an emotional stake in war, that would bring more balance to the decisions. If every congressman had thousands of voters with enlisted children there would be far fewer armchair quarterbacks/killers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see so the fact that we all register for the draft isn't enough to keep those thoughts in place? I mean you have to physically have the draft occuring.
The callousness it assumes is wrong. The measures passed were bipartisan. This measure is just about spitefulness from a decidedly small faction.
Nick
I could see that happening, I really could.
Just reading various threads here and watching and reading the news and hearing so many comments from people these days, all I can think sometimes is "thank God these weren't the attitudes and beliefs that prevailed 50 years ago...".
:eek:
After December 7, 1941, you heard about young men leaving girlfriends, jobs, wives, etc. to join up. I distinctly remember going to bed the night after 9/11 happened, thinking "wow, I bet this will re-awake and spark some sort of surge...".
It really didn't, I guess. I mean, everyone drove around with little flags on their cars for a couple of months, but a year-and-a-half later, the brutality and horror of that day seems to have faded for many.
And the person who orchestrated/funded it all is still out there and we don't seem TOO concerned about it.
Wow.
Personally, I'm STILL angry about 9/11 and when I stumble across that horrible footage of one of those planes hitting the tower and the people running around on the ground and the towers collapsing in on themselves and all, that entire day (and every emotion I felt) INSTANTLY comes roaring back and I almost feel sick in my stomach.
I can't stand to see that, yet I think it should be shown every single night at the start of every newscast, as a reminder.
Not being morbid or fishing for "shock" value. I just simply think people forget too soon. And what that day represents seems to have came, passed and faded for many, many people.
I'd have to check old archives and read accounts of the day, but I wonder if there was such a huge "national debate" on December 8, 1941 about "what to do" and "how to proceed"? And were we going to possibly "offend anyone" with whatever actions we deemed appropriate.
Curious...
Different times, different attitudes. A different world.
Kinda makes me want to ask some people: "okay, exactly what would it take, then? Is there anything so horrible and threatening to our nation and way of life that you could set aside your olive branch and lay down your guitar and say "okay, that's IT...it's your ass now, pal!"
I get the odd feeling that some people, on varying scales of importance and impact, would stand around and do very little (if anything) if it meant some sort of roughness, unpleasantness or violence might be involved.
I could very clearly see many people here try and reason with or talk to an intruder or someone in their house at 3am. Or stand by while their spouse or children are messed with by street thugs or whatever.
We've certainly, as a culture and as a general rule, seem to have been a bit "de-balled" over the years.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Believe me: I hate war and everything about it. And I sincerely hope I never have to live through one (a serious, world-involving "bad" one) and I hope no one I know loses their life in one. I'm not a warmonger by any stretch. And I'd love nothing more than for Lennon's song to come true. That would indeed be amazing.
But damn, people! Sometimes...
I just find it so sad that it's entirely lost on so many people the relationship between bad things happening in the world and young men toting guns around and getting their hands dirty (in a way that most of us could never imagine or dream of) DIRECTLY enable you and others to have the opinions and beliefs you do. There is a direct link and you have the freedom and luxury to bash the things you find horrible and brutal and barbaric, while, at the same time, someone you don't even know is 8,000 away eating REALLY crappy food and pissing in a bucket to help ensure that right continues for everyone.
Some people bash and deride the very thing that allows them to bash and deride what they choose.
Funny, isn't it?
Not "ha ha" funny, of course.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Yes, it is easy to see why someone with a liberal perspective would so easily consider death(possibly by fighting) and taxes the same thing.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>Because this type of posting focusing on personal attacks rather than ideas is actively discouraged at AI, I won't respond in kind.
Of course it's exactly the same prinicple: conservatives don't like taxes, and so want to drive everyone else against them by hitting as many people as possible over the head with them. Rangel doesn't like this war, and so wants to drive everyone else against it by making sure everyone is involved. I'm against both ideas, BTW.
<strong>
I'd have to check old archives and read accounts of the day, but I wonder if there was such a huge "national debate" on December 8, 1941 about "what to do" and "how to proceed"? And were we going to possibly "offend anyone" with whatever actions we deemed appropriate.
Curious...
Different times, different attitudes. A different world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By "offending anyone," what do you mean? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt rather than shooting from the hip. It's AppleOutsider after all.
Rangel might be using the children of average, good people to further his cause or beliefs. The tax thing is not putting anyone at risk. Different stakes there.
At least I HOPE so.
Ironically, as we all know, poor people get drafted. Blacks and hispanics and low-income whites are traditionally the ones who'll get called up. Anyone with money and connections can usually get a way out.
Do you honestly think that the son of ANYONE in Congress or the Administration is going to get their butt drafted and go through basic training and be put over in harm's way?
To make his point, Rangel is possibly hanging the children of his supporters and people who vote for him out to dry.
If Rangel had a draft-aged son (or grandson), do you not think he'd somehow be re-routed to a "non-eligible" position?
It's kinda squirm-inducing, to me, to so freely toy with the lives of others to simply make a political point.
Bitching about how much taxes The Man zaps from you is only that: bitching. No one is going to get their head or legs blown off from it.
It's not like Republicans are going to go out and grab 2000 18-22 year olds, line them up and say "okay, if taxes go higher than this point, we're going to shoot the first six here...and continue on until we get what we want."
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>By "offending anyone," what do you mean? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt rather than shooting from the hip. It's AppleOutsider after all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean, making sure everyone is satisfied and not offended, in a PC type of way, about who we determined the enemy to be and how we're going to deal with them.
I don't recall ANYONE ever saying "we hate Muslims and we're out to get them all!". But the argument/debate has certainly been framed that way by some to where if you look at a certain person or group the least bit sideways (based on some very unfortunate recent events), all hell breaks loose.
That's what I meant.
I don't think anyone is anywhere near going around throwing Muslims in detention camps and stamping all over their rights. It's a very small, select group of people who, as usual, are messing it up for everyone else and tainting the image for everyone.
But that "small, select group" happens to belong to a particular religion and come from a particular region of the world, so sometimes you have to use that as a starting point.
I've said it in other posts: it's kind of a waste of time to run down and frisk ever 65-year-old German or Swedish grandmother when, over the past decade or so, the people who've done the most harm and damage to us have been of a particular group.
You focus on THAT, when you're speaking of 9/11 and the whole "war on terror" thing. The USS Cole, the first WTC attack, the two attacked embassies, etc. Nobody from Chile, Tibet or New Zealand is blowing our stuff up and killing our citizens, last I looked.
That's what I meant.
But to actually SAY it is, apparently, the height of ignorance, intolerance and every other bad thing you can think of. And you'll get protested, second-guessed, slammed, called every name in the book, etc. for merely bringing it up in some quarters.
That's what I meant.
We're not perfect and we probably treated many Americans of Japanese descent horribly during WWII. And that should never happen and I hate that it did. But, looking around, I don't think the equivalent is happening to Muslims here. Believe me, you'd KNOW it if it were.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Yeah, but taxes have yet to get anyone killed.
Rangel might be using the children of average, good people to further his cause or beliefs. The tax thing is not putting anyone at risk. Different stakes there.
At least I HOPE so.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, absolutely. But that could be a good argument against the war in general, not just against a draft. I mean, presumably if we go to war it's because our country, our people, our freedom, etc. are threatened. Right?
Right?
<strong>I don't recall ANYONE ever saying "we hate Muslims and we're out to get them all!". But the argument/debate has certainly been framed that way by some to where if you look at a certain person or group the least bit sideways (based on some very unfortunate recent events), all hell breaks loose.
We're not perfect and we probably treated many Americans of Japanese descent horribly during WWII. And that should never happen and I hate that it did. But, looking around, I don't think the equivalent is happening to Muslims here. Believe me, you'd KNOW it if it were.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We did treat Japanese-Americans horribly during WWII, and we shouldn't do the same to Muslims now.
<strong>
Do you honestly think that the son of ANYONE in Congress or the Administration is going to get their butt drafted and go through basic training and be put over in harm's way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not what I said. Obviously the children of politicians are going to be protected, legally or not. Reread what I wrote, because I said something different.
<strong>Yes, he's only making a point. The sad part is that his point is pretty extreme, but it is needed to balance the extreme politicalization of the War on (insert anything). Everyone knows Bush's re-election plans hinge on campaigning on those "wars." What else has he done but stir up trouble in those areas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to link to some evidence that "Everyone knows" what you are speaking about?
Nick
<strong>
Care to link to some evidence that "Everyone knows" what you are speaking about?
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you disagreeing with me or just being argumentative?
<strong>
Just reading various threads here and watching and reading the news and hearing so many comments from people these days, all I can think sometimes is "thank God these weren't the attitudes and beliefs that prevailed 50 years ago...".</strong><hr></blockquote>
The situation 50 years ago was very different. If Iraq were to attack us directly, as did Japan, the response from people everywhere would be different. Was anyone seriously against attacking Afghanistan? No, but Iraq is different.
I agree though, that people are getting soft. It's a problem that perhaps manditory enlistment in the armed forces would fix?
<strong>
Are you disagreeing with me or just being argumentative?
Everyone knows Bush's re-election plans hinge on campaigning on those "wars." What else has he done but stir up trouble in those areas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a clear assertion on your part. Without any substance to support it, why even say it is worth an argument. You could tell me the sky is orange with purple stripes.
I have not read from any mainstream publications that Bush has to start a war to get re-elected. I haven't even read a poll that put his favorable rating under 60%.
So please substanciate what you declare and I will decide whether it is arguable or not. For now it has about as much credence as belching.
Nick