Charlie (more precisely)...

[tk2kewl]

Poll question: Charlie (more precisely)...

(edit for spelling)

[BuyingThyme]

1. I'm listening to him because he is a proven leader.

[demnan]

2. I disagree with him

because our President is insane.

[Mythsaje]

3. Not only no, but HELL no

Wow. This whole draft debate has touched off a few firestorms. I don't mind, really. My handle was bare inches from being "Stormsaje." I think debate is healthy. And while some of the debate here today has made me want to tear my hair out, it hasn't genuinely angered me. More like exasperation.

That I can handle. I'm not taking it personally, so I don't have to retreat. (I don't engage in debates when I get too emotionally involved--prevents me from saying things I REALLY don't want to say).

Here it is in a nutshell.

I oppose the draft. Period. No exceptions. I think forced service is anethema to a free, open, democratic society. I don't CARE what your rationale is. Anything can be rationalized.

Make NO mistake. What we're talking about here is taking kids who are presently minding their own business (whatever it might be), dragging them through training, slapping a gun in their hand, and sending them off to kill MORE people in order to support Bushco's present War of imperialistic aggression.

The argument is that it will "level the playing field" and make EVERYONE responsible for the war. If you think that the elites won't come up with new and inventive ways to prevent their children from fighting, you're dreaming. The power and influence they have NOW is worlds away from the power and influence they had forty years ago. You have NO idea. Some of them have more money than you can even IMAGINE.

No, what it will mean is that we'll be acting in COLLUSION with their future plans to invade other countries. It won't PREVENT wars. It'll make them easier to justify.

How so? Well, we certainly won't suffer from a lack of volunteers to fight in stupid fucking wars. Need more meat for the grinder? Well, hell. Just draft some more boys. It's as easy as pushing a button. Need a reason? Bomb something of OURS. "Oh my God. They just blew up our embassy in <insert city here>."

Protests? Look like volunteers to me. Grab 'em up, say they're "aiding the enemy" and ship them off to the front lines or Gitmo. What are they going to do about it?

God, some people are suckers.

The FIRST thing people need to do when something is suggested is look at both the positive AND the negative. What's the WORSE thing that could be done with this, if someone had the chance? Never, ever assume that it's all for the good. It NEVER works out that way. Not when you're talking about the realities of power.

How people who talk about how 9/11 may have been orchestrated, and that the Diebold machines are stealing our votes, can possibly think that handing them future generations of OUR CHILDREN could ever be a good thing.

Two weeks into winning the last election and we're thinking "hell, we got everything under control."

The fuck we do.

C'mon, people. Use your heads. Trust NOTHING.

All information, regardless of source, is suspect.

[NOLADEM]

4. Creating more innocent victims is not going to end this tragedy

Our president is crazy. I have two younger brothers who would be draft age. I am not parting with them because some guy wants to make a point about who sacrifices in war and handing them over to the Chimperor to be sent to slaughter in Iraq or Iran. NO FUCKING WAY.

If rednecks and the uninformed want to continue to sign up for this hopeless cause, fine. I can even see a silver lining. But I am NOT going to part with a loved one to prove this war is unwinnable and unfairly fought. NEWSFLASH MR RANGEL, almost all wars are fought by the poor for the rich.

Having the army fail because it can't find enough man power to continue the fight is a better solution to me. If you can't convince enough people in your country to join the army, then maybe you should take that as a sign that the war isn't seen as a good idea by your people.

A better solution is to discourage our young men and women from serving until we get answers from the government on a plan, a timetable, an apology for past wrongs perhaps, and a list of new rules on treatment of soldiers, veterans and detainees.

Rangel's move is a stunt that will NOT be well recieved by many. It is too cute, and if it happened, HORRIBLE. This is not far from the Democrats' version of 'A Modest Proposal' but our public is mostly retarded and doesn't get the joke.

If we gave the Chimp a draft, he would still hand out deferrments to all his chickenhawk buddies. NOTHING would change about who serves. It would still be a working class to lower income army. The Draft would just give him a new fundraising tool...'Give to the Pukes and get out of the Army.'

It would just make him stronger by giving him a cheaper, endless army of Democrats, new fundraising strength, and he would take the creation of the draft as an endorsement of his plan.

BAD IDEA Mr. Rangel. Smoke less, think more.

[MH1]

5. Why do you only include armed forces?

My understanding is that his bill would include non-military national service. Like Vista or AmeriCorps.

So, someone may have taken 2 or 3 years out of their life to do one of these stipended, non-military public service things (or, also the Peace Corps or something similar), and they would not be a hypocrite to support Rangel's bill.

(for the record, I have served in the military myself; I am thinking of others that I know).