Say NO! To Bringing Back The Draft!

[Johnny Anarcho]

Call Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and tell him that youth don't support bringing back the draft! We want to bring our troops home now and demand more money for college, for our public schools, for student financial aid and job training!

His number in DC is 202-225-4365

To contact your Congressperson and let them know that you don't want them to support bringing back the draft, click here. Just enter in your state and zip code and you can email your representative.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has been a strong anti-war and pro-peace voice in Congress. Rep. Rangel was speaking out against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. He has continued to speak out about the war in Iraq and the need to bring the troops home. Rep. Rangel has also been one of the lone voices in Congress that has been voicing concerns and alarm over the fact that the military has been targeting working class youth and youth of color for recruitment into the military.

However, now Rep. Rangel has said that he wants to re-instate the draft because the military relies heavily on working class youth and youth of color. He says that if the sons and daugthers of politicians were in danger of going to war, then they would think harder before sending our servicemen and women into war.

The military does target working class youth and youth of color for recruitment into the military. We call this the poverty draft where young people are forced into military service because of a lack of available options. However, bringing back the draft won't stop this. When we had a draft, the sons of politicians and the wealthy were able to dodge the draft and they would be able to do so again.

In order to address the poverty draft, we need to kick out the miltary recruiters that are in our schools. We need to fully fund our public schools, fully fund our universities and student financial aid programs and provide job training for young people.

Youth across the country can call Representative Rangel and their own Congressperson and let them know that we don't support bringing back the draft. Instead, we demand more money for college, for student aid and job training!

Say NO to the draft! (http://http://yclusa.org/article/articleview/1779/1/6/)

[Intellectual47]

Even as a capitalist I don't support a draft. Men should not be sent to die for a war that they all hate.
Don't worry about it though. US politicians are of the Vietnam generation and would never support a draft.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

I guess no one is understanding that this whole move to bring back the draft is an anti-war measure.

[colonelguppy]

oh my god oh my god oh my god THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A DRAFT.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 04, 2006 10:05 am
I guess no one is understanding that this whole move to bring back the draft is an anti-war measure.
Is that sarcasum or do you truley believe that bullshit?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Political_Chucky+December 05, 2006 02:55 am--> (Political_Chucky @ December 05, 2006 02:55 am)
Blue Collar [email protected] 04, 2006 10:05 am
I guess no one is understanding that this whole move to bring back the draft is an anti-war measure.
Is that sarcasum or do you truley believe that bullshit? [/b]
It cannot be anti-war, thats straight from the newspeak dictionary.
I think what he means is that Democrats in the US are proposing a return to conscription in order to magnify the political damage to the republicans concerning Iraq. The thinking is that if there was a draft the war would be even more unpopular, create greater acts of dissent and aid the Democrats own political aspirations. They don't seem to care about the young US men and women who would be enlisted, lose the best years of their life and be sacrificed for their (Democrats) political expediency.

[colonelguppy]

there doens't need to be a draft, talk of one is enough.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

If the draft was reinstated the first thing that would happen would be a swift and complete pull out from Iraq.

I'm surely at the near the front of any draft list, but I in no way fear it, since I simply wouldn't go. Besides, as long as politicians continue to suck the proverbial dick of the populous, we're not going to get any closer to change. Your average person has no reason to care that much.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 04, 2006 09:04 pm
If the draft was reinstated the first thing that would happen would be a swift and complete pull out from Iraq.

I'm surely at the near the front of any draft list, but I in no way fear it, since I simply wouldn't go. Besides, as long as politicians continue to suck the proverbial dick of the populous, we're not going to get any closer to change. Your average person has no reason to care that much.
If the draft was reinstated, the only reason why a complete pull out from Iraq would be achieved would be because the American capital would be in ruins from the angry American mobs who have finally had enough with a representative democracy. Hmm...maybe putting the draft back ain't a bad idea.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Originally posted by Political_Chucky+December 05, 2006 01:03 am--> (Political_Chucky @ December 05, 2006 01:03 am)
Blue Collar [email protected] 04, 2006 09:04 pm
If the draft was reinstated the first thing that would happen would be a swift and complete pull out from Iraq.

I'm surely at the near the front of any draft list, but I in no way fear it, since I simply wouldn't go. Besides, as long as politicians continue to suck the proverbial dick of the populous, we're not going to get any closer to change. Your average person has no reason to care that much.
If the draft was reinstated, the only reason why a complete pull out from Iraq would be achieved would be because the American capital would be in ruins from the angry American mobs who have finally had enough with a representative democracy. Hmm...maybe putting the draft back ain't a bad idea. [/b]
Or because the current powers that be would have no chance in hell of being re-elected if innocent Americans where being forced to fight and die in an unjust war.

[Zero]

The only promise that Bush has been truthful about is not instituting the Draft.

I believe the State of the Union is under oath. If not, I'm sure he has admitted that he refuses to instate the draft while he was under oath.

There will be no draft. I am 98% certain on this. Besides being political suicide (as if they needed any more nails for the Neo-Coffin) it would incite massive riots around the country, as well as the world.

As for the draft itself. It must be the single worst idea in Human history. There are born fighters, and there are born weavers. If you are built mentally to be a fighter, then you join a fighting force. If you are built mentally to be a Nurse or Doctor, you join a hospital. The absolute worst thing you can do is give a kid who is built mentally to be a computer programmer a gun, give him a bit of bullshit "training" (mostly meant to destroy your sense of individuality, rather than actually train you for experiences you may have in the field) and shove him into the jungles and deserts of the real world.

The last thing I want to see is a pile of dead 18-25 year olds. That should be a universal truism.

[liberdade]

there will never be a draft again they dont want to bring back the pain of vietnam. I dont think it is a anti-war tactic why a democrat is talking of this i have no idea, republicans are the ones who were first talking about this. And if you are in college and they draft you, you are allowed to finish out the semester and if your a senior then you are allowed to finish your year. But this is pointless so what are we going to be doing allowing opinions from a truly anti-revolutionary government teach the youth of america. Great thats all we need more gung-ho people with guns going into countrys for oil.

[ShakeZula06]

Even as a capitalist I don't support a draft.
Why would being a capitalist make you more likely to support the draft?

[Cheung Mo]

I believe that Rangel is genuinely committed to proving that the warmongers are elitist hypocrites who are too scared to fight for their own neo-con agenda...That's the closest thing to a compliment that the Democratic Party deserves.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 04:59 am

Even as a capitalist I don't support a draft.
Why would being a capitalist make you more likely to support the draft?
See the last two paragraphs of my post. That is why nobody thinks the draft is a good idea. Especially field COs, dealing with greens would be bad enough, dealing with greens who are not built mentally for the job of a soldier is worse.

[harris0]

I support a reinstatement of the draft (with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 03:52 pm
I support a reinstatement of the draft
So not only are you a reactionary, you're an arse too?


(with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq. It would also force poor people to serve, and there's a hell of a lot more poor than rich. This also contradicts your "libertarian" ideology - as if you had one.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 09, 2006 04:03 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 09, 2006 04:03 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 03:52 pm
I support a reinstatement of the draft
So not only are you a reactionary, you're an arse too?


(with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq. It would also force poor people to serve, and there's a hell of a lot more poor than rich. This also contradicts your "libertarian" ideology - as if you had one. [/b]
My favorite Stalinist...I thought you just wrote something in Chit Chat about how you wanted respectful debate, etc.

I would support the reinstatement of the draft, because I think it would keep wars from being fought entirely, and would awaken millions of people our age politically. That's the only reason kids got politically active in the 1960s--because everyone faced the risk of having to go die in some far off jungle.

I would only support it however if there were no rich kid defferment loopholes

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 04:07 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 04:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:03 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 03:52 pm
I support a reinstatement of the draft
So not only are you a reactionary, you're an arse too?


(with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq. It would also force poor people to serve, and there's a hell of a lot more poor than rich. This also contradicts your "libertarian" ideology - as if you had one.
My favorite Stalinist...I thought you just wrote something in Chit Chat about how you wanted respectful debate, etc. [/b]
Which you clearly didn't read - like most of my posts. I am definatley not a stalinist. I also want respectable debate with fellow leftists. SHitmongers like yourself can expect no respect. Nor do I crave any from you.


I would support the reinstatement of the draft, because I think it would keep wars from being fought entirely, and would awaken millions of people our age politically. That's the only reason kids got politically active in the 1960s--because everyone faced the risk of having to go die in some far off jungle. So you support it because you can then go on to oppose it when it is used? You're really quite a silly **** aren't you?


I would only support it however if there were no rich kid defferment loopholes The existance of a legal loophole is entirely acedemic when you find the true bourgeoise. For one thing they're considered too "important" to be sent to war.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:07 pm
I would support the reinstatement of the draft, because I think it would keep wars from being fought entirely, and would awaken millions of people our age politically. That's the only reason kids got politically active in the 1960s--because everyone faced the risk of having to go die in some far off jungle.

And many did go off and die in some far off jungle, because of the draft! It was more than just a risk, it was a brute fucking fact for thousands of men. Yet you think it's good because it made people oppose it?

And it would happen all over again when America chooses its next war: poor drafted soldiers would be sent to some far off place to be slaughtered, whilst rich Americans would stay in university to avoid it.

You really are a complete idiot.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 11:52 am
I support a reinstatement of the draft (with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq.
Your not a Leftist, and should be restricted.

Also what you are supporting is completely stupid, just as the person who first preposed it.

[harris0]

Thanks for the polite comments guys.

I support a draft, because if there was one....there would immediately be large scale protests....and no war would get off the ground.

Additionally, what we have now is largely a poverty draft. If there was a chance that the Bush twins would have to go and fight and die in the desert, and the kids of all their rich friends...policy makers would think less abstractly about casualties and kill counts.

Essentially I support the draft because it would make wars of choice impossible to sell to the public. Hopefully that's not to complicated to understand

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 09, 2006 09:15 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 09, 2006 09:15 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 11:52 am
I support a reinstatement of the draft (with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq.
Your not a Leftist, and should be restricted.

Also what you are supporting is completely stupid, just as the person who first preposed it. [/b]
Why, because I support a draft for anti-war reasons? Because I don't like Lenin and don't have a personal problem with police officers?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Zero,

This is just to help you out:

No President of the United States, save three, have ever made a statement under oath during their tenure as President.

In order, they were:

George Washington testified before Congress and regretted it. He never did so again, and everyone followed suit.

Andrew Johnson was a witness at his own impeachment. (He didn't have to be, but chose to be.) He took an oath before he gave testimony, in the chamber of the United States Senate, which tried him for violating the Tenure in Office Act.

(He was found not guilty by one vote.)

Bill Clinton testified under oath at a deposition, lied in his testimony, and was impeaced for it, and found not guilty. The Arkansas Bar suspended him for 5 years. His suspension ended a while ago.

Presidents (U.S. ones, anyway) don't find themselves in the forum where oaths are necessary. It just doesn't happen. Congree can't make them do shit. (Ironically, the President can "make" Congress meet, under certain circumstances.)

Of course, when the president is sworn into office, he must make a one sentence oath, but that really can't be used in a bill of impeachment itself. You need the violation of the law (which Bush did so when he violated the law in creating his own "justice system" for issuing warrants. Only the court can do that.)

The State of the Union "address" was, for most of our history, not done by a speach to a joint session of Congress, but was written by the President to Congress. There is no "oath" made before it is delivered in any form.


A. Hamilton

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 05:07 pm
I would support the reinstatement of the draft, because I think it would keep wars from being fought entirely, and would awaken millions of people our age politically. That's the only reason kids got politically active in the 1960s--because everyone faced the risk of having to go die in some far off jungle.
:o DUMBASS ALERT! :o
a draft to get people anti-war?, maybe we should let the government start segregation to get people anti-racist. :rolleyes:
get real!

[harris0]

Calling me a dumbass. Not exactly a crushing refutation of my argument.

Why do you think there was so much anti-war sentiment in the 1960's? There was a draft.

Why do you think kids our age are so apathetic about the war? There is no draft.

Bottom line: today...We wouldn't be fighting wars of choice if there was a draft.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I, in fact, support the concept of a draf for war, because I believe in Rangle's concept. I would not support it at this time and under his circumstance, because he is not sincere, and is "trying to make a point".

I believe war is very serious, and only support it through declaration.

I believe that when we (or any society) goes to war, the entire society should go to war. Ration books, those who are fighting have their bills on hold and creditors taken care of, all food and supplies and fuel moved to the front line. Use 10 times the people you believe you'll need. Simply put, none of this, go to war while continuing life as normal shit.

This will help you be very careful about going to war. Of course I support killing the Alcada, and their military the Taliban, as they attacked us. Short of being attacked, you go to war to 1) defend the homeland, or 2) protect the Bill of Rights. As neither was threatened by whatshisface who ran Iraq, I don't support the Iraq invasion.


A. Hamilton

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 05:30 pm
Why, because I support a draft for anti-war reasons? Because I don't like Lenin and don't have a personal problem with police officers?
You support the draft, enough said, there will not be large scale fucking protests, and I promise you that the government would silence any protest, so thus supporting the draft, is just that, your supporting the draft, and thus by relation supporting war, imperialism, and the killing of the working class on both sides.

What does Lenin have to do with anything? I am not even a Communist, so you can keep the "silly commie, blah blah," scapegoating arguments to yourself.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 09:30 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 09:30 pm)
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2006 09:15 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 11:52 am
I support a reinstatement of the draft (with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq.
Your not a Leftist, and should be restricted.

Also what you are supporting is completely stupid, just as the person who first preposed it.
Why, because I support a draft for anti-war reasons? [/b]
That's one of the reasons yes. Your justification for it is stupid and doesn't really work, you stupid arse candle.

Think about it for a second, the mass-protests will only really start in ernest when a lot of people have already been killed off. Also if a country is determined that what it is doing is in self defence its citizenry will often rally around and be blind to the suffering of their fellows. Consider, for example, conscription in world war 1.


Because I don't like Lenin There are plenty of unrestricted people who don't like Lenin.
and don't have a personal problem with police officers? Well, yes.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:42 pm
Calling me a dumbass. Not exactly a crushing refutation of my argument.

Why do you think there was so much anti-war sentiment in the 1960's? There was a draft.

Why do you think kids our age are so apathetic about the war? There is no draft.

Bottom line: today...We wouldn't be fighting wars of choice if there was a draft.
so you want a bunch of youngsters to get dropped off in the middle of the dessert and then the biggest part of them, because they are unprepared, to die just so it can get some people politicly active? <_<
about 3000 soldiers died already, these were voluntary, imagine if they had unvoluntary people down there&#33;

and no people care about the war?, shit, there is enough people caring about the war and out of response all they did was vote for the democrats

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 09, 2006 09:51 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 09, 2006 09:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:30 pm

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2006 09:15 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 11:52 am
I support a reinstatement of the draft (with no rich kid college defferments), for exactly the reason Congressmen Rangel proposed this measure. It would force young rich kids to serve, and it would keep us out of silly wars like Iraq.
Your not a Leftist, and should be restricted.

Also what you are supporting is completely stupid, just as the person who first preposed it.
Why, because I support a draft for anti-war reasons?
That&#39;s one of the reasons yes. Your justification for it is stupid and doesn&#39;t really work, you stupid arse candle.

Think about it for a second, the mass-protests will only really start in ernest when a lot of people have already been killed off. Also if a country is determined that what it is doing is in self defence its citizenry will often rally around and be blind to the suffering of their fellows. Consider, for example, conscription in world war 1.


Because I don&#39;t like Lenin There are plenty of unrestricted people who don&#39;t like Lenin.
and don&#39;t have a personal problem with police officers? Well, yes. [/b]
Did you just call me a "candle"?

Look we disagree....I don&#39;t think we live in the political climate of WW1, WW2, or even Vietnam. I think the public is a lot less tolerant of unnecessary wars. I don&#39;t think the public would tolerate a war on such b.s. evidence as the past one if we had a draft. That&#39;s what I think...what can I say. You can make fun of me, and call me a "candle" all you want for it.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+December 09, 2006 09:51 pm--> (Big Manifesto @ December 09, 2006 09:51 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:42 pm
Calling me a dumbass. Not exactly a crushing refutation of my argument.

Why do you think there was so much anti-war sentiment in the 1960&#39;s? There was a draft.

Why do you think kids our age are so apathetic about the war? There is no draft.

Bottom line: today...We wouldn&#39;t be fighting wars of choice if there was a draft.
so you want a bunch of youngsters to get dropped off in the middle of the dessert and then the biggest part of them, because they are unprepared, to die just so it can get some people politicly active? <_<
about 3000 soldiers died already, these were voluntary, imagine if they had unvoluntary people down there&#33;

and no people care about the war?, shit, there is enough people caring about the war and out of response all they did was vote for the democrats [/b]
No, I don&#39;t think anyone would be in the desert whatsoever...because I don&#39;t think our present society would tolerate even a buildup for a future war of choicce if there was a draft. Again, we disagree. Call me a "candle" if you must.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:01 pm
Did you just call me a "candle"?
Arse candle. I could easily have called you one of many other interesting things, including my personal favourite &#39;wankshaft&#39;. But I didn&#39;t really think it was necessary.


Look we disagree....I don&#39;t think we live in the political climate of WW1, WW2, or even Vietnam. I think the public is a lot less tolerant of unnecessary wars. I don&#39;t think the public would tolerate a war on such b.s. evidence as the past one if we had a draft. That&#39;s what I think...what can I say. You can make fun of me, and call me a "candle" all you want for it. The only thing needed for any government to make this more like World War one is be more convincing about the threat. THe US, for example, could occupy Darfur right now without anyone batting an eyelid, no one cared too much about afghanistan. In terms of what the US could or can do wit the coalition the only problems it has are the Iraq quagmire and Iran. People are exceptionally maleable when they are convinced they are threatened.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 11:03 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 11:03 pm)
Originally posted by Big [email protected] 09, 2006 09:51 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 10:42 pm
Calling me a dumbass. Not exactly a crushing refutation of my argument.

Why do you think there was so much anti-war sentiment in the 1960&#39;s? There was a draft.

Why do you think kids our age are so apathetic about the war? There is no draft.

Bottom line: today...We wouldn&#39;t be fighting wars of choice if there was a draft.
so you want a bunch of youngsters to get dropped off in the middle of the dessert and then the biggest part of them, because they are unprepared, to die just so it can get some people politicly active? <_<
about 3000 soldiers died already, these were voluntary, imagine if they had unvoluntary people down there&#33;

and no people care about the war?, shit, there is enough people caring about the war and out of response all they did was vote for the democrats
No, I don&#39;t think anyone would be in the desert whatsoever...because I don&#39;t think our present society would tolerate even a buildup for a future war of choicce if there was a draft. Again, we disagree. Call me a "candle" if you must. [/b]
well ill take the choice to call you an arse candle
because in Vietnam, wich time you keep reffering to, people still went and died

[harris0]

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+December 09, 2006 10:18 pm--> (Big Manifesto @ December 09, 2006 10:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 11:03 pm

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 09, 2006 09:51 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 10:42 pm
Calling me a dumbass. Not exactly a crushing refutation of my argument.

Why do you think there was so much anti-war sentiment in the 1960&#39;s? There was a draft.

Why do you think kids our age are so apathetic about the war? There is no draft.

Bottom line: today...We wouldn&#39;t be fighting wars of choice if there was a draft.
so you want a bunch of youngsters to get dropped off in the middle of the dessert and then the biggest part of them, because they are unprepared, to die just so it can get some people politicly active? <_<
about 3000 soldiers died already, these were voluntary, imagine if they had unvoluntary people down there&#33;

and no people care about the war?, shit, there is enough people caring about the war and out of response all they did was vote for the democrats
No, I don&#39;t think anyone would be in the desert whatsoever...because I don&#39;t think our present society would tolerate even a buildup for a future war of choicce if there was a draft. Again, we disagree. Call me a "candle" if you must.
well ill take the choice to call you an arse candle
because in Vietnam, wich time you keep reffering to, people still went and died [/b]
Right...people are considerably more cynical today about their leaders than the american public that grew up in the 1950&#39;s. Conservatives call it the "Vietnam Syndrome".