Any wars, btw.

I think that if most Republicans are happy about the US Army killing innocent people in Iraq yet expect "other people" to figh their wars, then you know, make it mandatory for ALL AMERICANS to serve in the military.

Would I be happy about having to serve in the military? Of course not. I wouldn't my children either. But I am not a hypocrite ---I am the last person to call myself a US Patriot.

People like Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter? If not Rush Limbaugh, then send his kids. Hannity is still of age, he can go. Have them serve. Have them fight. If they want war, then they should get it. In uniform. In Iraq

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.