If we Americans let this pass without an all out fight, we will be held hostages in our own country. To HELL with WASHINGTON DC. I HOPE to see RIOTS in the streets by our young people if this bill passes. I will be out there too. I am 53 years old and remember the draft years ago. It is time to take our country back.The BUTTHEADS in Office can be replaced. They work for US The People. Not Corporations ,Not the Military or anyone, but The People. Someone should take names and KICK ASS.

On the draft returning...one the bill aside many former military and politicians feel that without a constitutional amendment....it be nearly impossible to reinstate....two, rangel is playing very partisan politics with this bill which wont get any real support even among the dems... and three and most notably, conscript armies are notoriously less capable than volunteer armies....i.e.US during nam compared to US now....one would also point out that there is a shift across Europe to move away from conscript militaries and has been for years...many nations have plans in the works for a transition to something akin to the US model within 2-3 years....this latest bs bout reinstating the draft is nothing but a red herring and political suicide for those who would sponsor it...DC knows this as does Rangel, which is why he rarely mentions it when doing a TV appearance.....

one final note....for those who think we need a draft, well both Guard/Reserve has reached their enlistment goals antiwar hype aside..as for the active duty, they have exceeded theirs....and under emergency war powers, they are continuing to increase their manpower....by 2007, we will go from 33 active brigades to between 46 - 49 active brigades...a modest jump to say the least....

If we Americans let this pass without an all out fight, we will be held hostages in our own country.

Easy man.... the bill has no chance of going anywhere:)

Kingbee: Let me put is more straight forward: The mass protests against the Vietnam war only began after the deferments for college students was lifted. NOT before.

In other words, whether the war was "immoral" in some galactic sense is irrelevant, what is relevant to this discussion is that the so-called high conscious college student community only discovered this immorality once their asses were on the line.

A couple of shrewd Democrats understand this and hence want to repeat the excercise.

Actually Draginol, that's still not true, I'm not sure how old you were during the Vietnam war, but I can remember people in my hometown being VERY upset over the draft, and that was before deferments for college students was lifted.

Since protests are very rarely a universal thing, your statement mey be true in your neck of the woods, and not in mine and others, who knows.

Cheers

In other words, whether the war was "immoral" in some galactic sense is irrelevant, what is relevant to this discussion is that the so-called high conscious college student community only discovered this immorality once their asses were on the line.

Brad, that is not unique to college students, or to that time period. Most people tend to ignore things or not bother to address things until it affects them. There aren't many things that motivate a person more than when something is knocking at their door.

VES

The mass protests against the Vietnam war only began after the deferments for college students was lifted. NOT before.

apparently you didnt read the last part of my comment. public displays of dissent against the vietnam conflict began long before student deferments were restricted in any way. the first mass protests against us involvement in vietnam took place in 1964 and escalated in 1965. johnson didnt eliminate exemptions for married men til 1965. grad student deferments were restricted in 1967. a test intended to determine student deferee qualifications was first given in 1967. student deferments were replaced by a draft lottery in 1969.

many students with valid determents burned their draft cards during antirwar demonstrations from 1964-68 to eliminate any doubt about their willingness to put themselves at risk in order to end the war.

I will have to let the oldsters here settle this one Vietnam was before my time.

A couple of shrewd Democrats understand this and hence want to repeat the excercise.

if lyndon johnson wasnt shrewd, he wasnt anything. the draft and the war brought his long and previously very successful career to an abrupt conclusion.

cracked me up bigtime with that one greywar!

Pleased to be making with the levity in the midst of gravitas.

Actually Draginol, that's still not true, I'm not sure how old you were during the Vietnam war, but I can remember people in my hometown being VERY upset over the draft, and that was before deferments for college students was lifted.

Jeb, please re-read what I said. I said that college students didn't start getting ticked off until THEY got drafted.  Obviously people in your home town would be getting ticked if they were getting drafted.  That's the whole idea - those getting drafted and their families have a vested interest in not liking it. I wouldn't like to get drafted either.

But the college campus mass protests didn't begin until THEY started to get drafted. That's what I was getting at.

BTW, Kingbee, we have different thresholds I suspect on what we consider "mass protests". ONe could argue that there are big protests against this current war. But the huge, anti-war movement that ultimately brought an end to the US's involvement in the Vietnam war didn't begin UNTIL after college deferments went away. There are *always* some people who protest any given thing obviously.

It certainly would *not* be healthy for a great many of us. Lets take the thugs off the street and just *give* them military grade weapons and explosives! Thank but no thanks from this NCO.

You know, I think it would be healthy IF everyone served two years for their country in some fashion, however...

I agree with this, but not in the way I think you mean it. You see, the guy who picks up your trash, he's servicing his country. The guy who sells you food, he's servicing his country. I believe everyone should, in their own rational self-interest, provide services or products of value to the country for which they receive value. This DOES NOT involve any forced participation on the part of the government, unless the country is demonstrably in danger of being attacked or taken over by a foreign power. There will always be people who will choose to defend this country, or serve in some form of government, so long as this country remains something worth fighting for, something that they get value from. And the more this country has to offer it's people in terms of freedom, the more people will be willing to fight to retain that which is in their interest.

I believe many people are actually deterred from being productive (and thus serving others in the country) because of the "safety net" culture that we have created.

VES