portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

imperialism & war

Rangel calls for mandatory military service

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said such legislation could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.

In October, he voted against a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
Rangel calls for mandatory military service
Sunday, December 29, 2002 Posted: 7:30 PM EST (0030 GMT)

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Democratic lawmaker said Sunday he will introduce a bill in the next session of Congress to make military service mandatory.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said such legislation could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.

"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the Free World against the threats coming to us," Rangel said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I'm talking about mandatory service."

The Korean War veteran has accused the Bush administration and some fellow lawmakers of being too willing to go to war with Iraq.

In October, he voted against a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. It passed 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate.

"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress," he said.

"I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.'"

Rangel did not provide specifics of his proposal.

homepage: homepage: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/index.html

liberalism gone bad? 29.Dec.2002 21:00

marshall forloveoflife76@hotmail.com

hahaha... I thought I recognized this guy's name, so I looked him up his pic


This guy's great in "Coverup: Behind Iran/Contra" (see http://www.empowermentproject.org/coverup.htm)

While I appreciate the sentiment, you gotta wonder, is this an example of using the system to show its own absurdities, or are we going to get honest, mandatory military service ala Israel someday? You'd hafta kick not only this guy, but every witty liberal you knew in the ass if it worked out that way, eh?

Unbelievable 29.Dec.2002 21:58


Rangel is either terribly naive, or he's being used as a useful dupe. His bill will probably be merged with HB 3598, which provides for compulsory "military training" and has been in the Armed Services Committee for more than a year. The Rangel initiative will make HB 3598 "bi-partisan" support, thereby giving the Bush war machine the cannon fodder it needs to wage Operation Enduring War. Of course with a non-volunteer army they'll never know who's really with them and who's just waiting for a chance to sugar the tanks' gas tanks. Could be a good thing, especially if it gets to the point where the military is called upon to put the screws to American civilians. Naaah - what am I thinkin'? The first part of "military training" is a frontal lobotomy.

Just Making a Point 29.Dec.2002 22:54

Gulf War Vet

Rangel is just using this issue to make a point. The sons and daughters of this country's wealthy elite are completely absent from the ranks of the military. People like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield have no personal stake in war. Casualties are just meaningless numbers to them. Same with all the other rich fat cats that control this country. You can bet Vietnam would not have gone on for 12 years if the sons of Senators were dying in rice paddies.

Today the military is filled with the off spring of the poor and middle class. Most join for the $75,000 dollars in college money not out of any great sense of patriotism. Hence, no great surge in enlistment after 9/11. My cousin is a recruiter here in Oregon and he will be the first to tell you that with out the College Fund army recruitment would drop by 80%.

This proposal will never see the light of day even if it is introduced. The military would mutiny before they let any sort of draft take place. Nothing would destroy the professionalism of the armed forces faster than dumping in a million guys and gals who did not want to be there.

One thing is certain, If George's daughters were in the first stick jumping into Baghdad you can bet he would be approaching Iraq a whole lot differently.

In Vietnam 30.Dec.2002 00:27

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

In Vietnam, the very rich were absent. The somewhat rich were officers, and the working class were grunts. If mandatory service was enacted, it could end up striated by class lines in exactly the same way: the grunts getting killed in the rice paddies while officers in helicopters hovered safe and high up, away from any small arms fire. The officers tours were 6 months long while the grunts tours were one year long. There was so much class emnity that fraggings soon became common.

This proposal is cynically using class tension in order to force everyone into directly serving the war machine, possibly with their lives, and the end result will probably once again be working class grunts dying for the upper-middle class officers' promotions. Working class people who are against the war machine will be forced to join up no matter what. Middle-class people who are against the war machine will be forced to serve it too.

Let's not forget that in modern wars, the ratio of civilians killed to military personnel killed is 10 to 1. For every soldier killed, ten civilians die. Let's not fool ourselves; the military is for killing. This proposal will force EVERYONE to be a killer of innocents. I do not care what kind of political partisan statements are being made. The end result will be the same as all US political decisions; working class people will get the shaft in military assignments while the middle-class gets the much better deal.

Legislature is not for "making a point" but to serve people in general (at least that is the rhetoric they spew). This is the kind of proposal that argues on behalf of the anarchist within everyone.

forcing Congress to care about the people? 30.Dec.2002 02:00

huh, good luck

well said GRINGO.

this is indeed an odd little late wire "story"...(thanks for the comments too "Bush Admirer". hm...)

even more odd is the rationale behind Rangel's idea.

as for "the threats coming to us", it would *appear* that Rangel thinks that certain drug traffickers are out flood the country with drugs.

twisted "logic" aside, the issue regarding the US getting into (instigating) wars with member of the "international community" isn't necessarily about sovereignty (like america, its people or its govt care about the rights of other nations or the people therein), IMO, but the "my way or the highway" mentality of the US controllers does play a big part in how "operation enduring war" is being sold to the american sheeple. with regards to the US, OUR WAY comes to mean that nations will have to submit to the will of the US and the world controllers pulling the strings, but for the US citizenry THE HIGHWAY means that the "terrorists will have won".

with a world full of global and domestic terrorists, things have to be done OUR WAY. now what american in their "right mind" is going to argue against the will of the US govt or for the logic of Rangel? one word: sacrifice. Bush was 0ping the people for it in his "Christmas message", members of Congress were 0ping for it in front of TV news cameras not 20-minutes after those airplanes ran into those buildings that one day last year.

so Rangel thinks that congressmen will return "home" (to voting districts) after such legislation only to hear massive public outcry from the constituents, when those scum suckers do nothing but take advantage of the peoples trust at every turn? this guy can't be anti-drugs cuz he's got to be doing some of the purest stuff around in order to draw such a conclusion.

(and is it just me, or was the grammer and syntax in that CNN article a bit off? what a rush job. worse than me.)

"Today the military is filled with the offspring of the poor and middle class. Most join for the $75,000 dollars in college money not out of any great sense of patriotism."

i remember watching a national news broadcast a little over a year ago that ran a story on how [the Bush administration] was offering $75,000/year to people--mostly young men who were the sons of coal miners--if they would work in the mine. i couldn't help but think at that time that pretty soon the US will be forcing people to work in those mines...

Rangel relevant rummage
"*** Borrowing from Peter to refund Paul:

Have you gotten your tax reimbursement check yet? We just got ours on Saturday -- soaking wet in the mailbox. Anyway, it'll dry. Here's the real news:

Back on April 30, the Treasury Department expected to pay off at least $57 billion of the publicly held portion of the national debt in the third calendar quarter. Now, however, it's been forced to sell $51 billion worth of bonds -- a short-term loan to pay for all of the checks we're receiving! Representative (Dem.-NY) Charles Rangel points out, "The whole Republican rationale for passing such a big tax cut is that we needed to send the surpluses back to the people. How ironic is it that we are now borrowing from the people in order to pay them their checks?"

Assistant secretary for financial markets, Brian Roseboro, has a differing view, "The net borrowing for this quarter should not be looked at as anything more than a cash management factor."

(more on govt money management)

Charles Rangel: "We can do something for Columbia"

Rangel says no to legalizing drugs...

...keep them hooked on drugs which are illegal and then lock them away because, they're not sick, they're criminals

i was born a coal miner's son


"Coals Day Has Come, Again--But Labor Shortage Hits Boom-Bust Industry" (ABCnews.com)

"Bush budget snags $2 billion from mine trust fund" ("...a move that would allow pollution from thousands of former coal mines to fester in Appalachian coal country..")

Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals

marketing Kentucky Coal (Kentucky Coal Council)

Coal mines, employment and production for Kentucky coal mines

at least somebody cares (surely it isn't the government)

"Protesters meet pResident Bush at Safe Harbor Dam"

Kentucky Coal Miners Site

Can't control conscripts 31.Dec.2002 01:11

John F.

Mr. Rangel is correct in his thinking that a draft would bring us a bit more rapidly to reality. However, it's a "no go" right now because conscripts are not as easy to control as volunteers. Our country hasn't yet been driven into the ground enough to force conscription and total compliance on all. Note that word "yet". And, the public might have to take some responsibility--oh, horror the idea. The public doesn't even realize that military officers have at this moment mostly betrayed their commissioning oaths and let down their country. Every officer takes an oath to defend the Constitution (not the government) against all foes DOMESTIC and foreign. How did your last presidential election go? Was it done in accordance with the Constitution? Remember, voting means allowing all qualified voters the opportunity to vote AND it means counting the votes too.