mole333's picture

I think you are playing dumb

Well, let's discuss a draft. My gut reaction is to oppose it, whoever recommends it. But that is a gut reaction. Was a draft reasonable during WW II? My gut reaction is to say "of course it was!" Why? Because of the direct attack on the US and the stakes of the war against fascism.

So that is one case where I would indeed support a draft.

I would not support a draft in the case of a war, like in Iraq, that was based on lies and addresses no real threat to the US. But, I also have to admit that Rangel has a very valid point which I cannot contradict: if America is engaged in a war of any sort for any length of time, we are in essence sending primarily poor minorities to die for the self interest of rich whites. That is, in essence, what the war in Iraq is all about: poor minorities dying for Halliburton profits and Republican victories (oops! that isn't working anymore!). It is a valid point Rangel is making even if I am uncomfortable with it.

Now...what about the REAL war, the one against those who attacked us. The war against al-Qaeda as opposed to the war of lies in Iraq. We were directly attacked by al-Qaeda. Does that justify a draft? Again, my gut reaction is that it does not...but I would be far more accepting of it if that was the war the US was focused on. Bush has distracted the world from the real war and focused it on his pet war for Halliburton and Exxon's profits.

I guess my point is that there are two arguements for the draft and they do not necessarily agree on when a draft is appropriate. One is based on the need of the nation to mobilize against a direct and major threat to the United States itself. That was the reasoning behind the draft in WW II. The other is Rangel's arguement that if the US is willing to go to war for a protracted period, the responsibility should be shouldered by the entire population, not just poor minorities.

If you understand that, address those two reasons, don't pretend that somehow the Democrats are in some unified way contradicting themselves, which is how I interpreted your remarks. Rangel, largely on his own, is addressing a very real issue and it does deserve to be discussed.


Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 989 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

We don't see it as not having church on Christmas. We see it as decentralizing the church on Christmas - hundreds of thousands of experiences going on around Christmas trees.


— Rev. Gene Appel, senior pastor of Willow Creek
Lansing State Journal: Some 'megachurches' won't offer services on Dec. 25


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify