General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (AcertainLiz) on Fri May 2, 2014, 09:53 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jgarrick
(521 posts)
handmade34
(24,003 posts)citizenship
Lasher
(29,544 posts)Slavery; the condition of an individual who works for another individual against his or her will as a result of force, coercion, or imprisonment, regardless of whether the individual is paid for the labor.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Servitude
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)It's now called oligarchic conscription. And thanks to the internet those entering the service know what awaits them upon landing at whatever airport the US will be making bombing or drones runs from and also what awaits them after landing back in the US after completing their service: less than NOTHING. I joined--not drafted--and landed in an early victim country in 1964. Stayed until 1967. It was the single biggest mistake of my entire life and the things I saw altered my very soul. Citizenship? If citizenship includes gunning down complete strangers standing a click away plowing a field so their starving families can eat, then you can have your citizenship. Ego mihi arbitror
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Front lines of a wild fire? Never mind...
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)helped fight small forest fires in Kachina Village until the FD got there. I just won't kill people so
some politician can buy another shopping center.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)does not only mean military service. I know for Americans it has only one meaning, but it is time we grow up as a society and get over the me, myself and I mentality.
I served for ten years as a paramedic, in another country. I even held for a while a military commission. That goes to WW II. I never ever touched a weapon. It was for a good while (until the civil war started) a form of service.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)exist. I've read your posts for a while even before you attenuated them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we should be having that conversation and attenuated, I have never stopped saying what I believe. I just stopped posting here for while because we have character assassins running around.
And I do believe we need a form of national service. And that might include the military as an option. Right now we have a poverty draft, and none gives a hoot about it. The poor are disposable. And that is an attitude I find disgusting.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)me not exactly agreeing with the United States on many things. I find the US treatment of the poor disgusting also, but I don't know what I can do about it anymore. I have some ideas, but they no longer are limited to marching with signs and emailing congresspeople. So, I might lose you there, ma'am. I am ready for Teamster 1975 responses regarding the poor and diminishing of everyone but the very rich. But we can't speak freely here. TTYL
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There is quite a bit of shall we say... discontent.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)and we live in a nice neighborhood. This can't go on much longer without violence, and I don't mean militias fighting the government. See ya, ma'am. I have to do some Excel Spreadsheets for my wife.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And I know exactly what you mean
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I wasn't trying to offend anyone. But this service has to be done, and it should be done by all of us, IMO.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)under the mistaken impression that you can live here and it's not YOUR land, and that somebody else (WHOEVER!) has to fix this place FOR YOU, and you can just enjoy it with no effort on your part? Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe your attitude!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)You know, that very Republican throw-trash-out-the-car-window attitude - Behave as if you're not part of this land and its people, and treat it and them like they are here only to exploit, destroy, then move on.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Woulnd't you say so?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Because you're being needlessly rude to me, for starters.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)We all have our goals, though they might differ.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't feel like continuing this though, so bye 
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)n/t
Jgarrick
(521 posts)
Response to Jgarrick (Reply #873)
Post removed
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So yeah...
Jgarrick
(521 posts)to fix up my (or anyone else's) house...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)in every way. Congrats.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not domestic servitude.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)That makes it all better then...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Again, I don't understand why anyone with this stance isn't against education being mandatory, for example.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)And in any case minors are allowed to drop out of high school, are they not?
What's more, mandating 6 hours of school per day for children is also considerably different than telling an an adult what they're allowed to do for a living, what sort of housing they're allowed to live in, and where they're allowed to live while they put in their "service".
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)That seems your only argument against my proposal. I was hoping if you disagreed it'd be more along the lines of its operationally impossible or just unnecessary or this is a better solution, stuff like that. Not shallow moral condemnations.
"And in any case minors are allowed to drop out of high school, are they not? "
Where? Is that allowed in some places? Because where I live it isn't. But even then, isn't mandatory schooling period bad based on your criteria?
"What's more, mandating 6 hours of school per day for children is also considerably different than telling an an adult what they're allowed to do for a living, what sort of housing they're allowed to live in, and where they're allowed to live while they put in their "service"."
It's temporary though.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)It's not, although for the foreseeable future it's politically impossible. Luckily.
or just unnecessary
It's certainly that.
or this is a better solution
The better solution is to leave people the hell alone.
Not shallow moral condemnations.
I've never considered being pro-choice particularly shallow . YMMV.
Where? Is that allowed in some places?
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/sorry-youre-not-allowed-to-drop-out-please-resume-learning/28501
"Right now some states allow you to drop out at 16 and others insist you stay until 18, though those states have lots of exceptions that allow you to drop out earlier (for instance, if you get a job or your parents say it’s OK)"
Roughly one million students drop out of high school every year.
But even then, isn't mandatory schooling period bad based on your criteria?
As I have already pointed out, minors are treated differently than adults. What's more, as far as I know no 18 year old in any state is required to stay in high school. When you're an adult the rules change.
It's temporary though.
Oh, that makes it ok then. Why not have all 18 years olds report for a 12 year term while we're at it? They'll have time to get really good at whatever career the State chooses for them during that time, and it will be good for their character. It's not much of an imposition...after all, they'll only be 30 when they're allowed to live where they like and work as they like. 30 is still young.
Besides, it's temporary.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"It's not, although for the foreseeable future it's politically impossible. Luckily. "
Absolutely you're right, unfortunately. But what's your real arguments against it, other than "you can't force people to do anything" which is totally false, obviously since there is such a thing as civic duty and responsibility, for starters.
"It's certainly that."
Okay, why then? Now we're getting somewhere.
"The better solution is to leave people the hell alone."
Well, we've tried that. Have a better one?
"I've never considered being pro-choice particularly shallow . YMMV."
Well you're not pro-choice in this regard. You're perfectly fine with forcing people to do whatever, just not this. Hence it's shallow.
"http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/sorry-youre-not-allowed-to-drop-out-please-resume-learning/28501 "
Ah, okay. Well, even then, the bar is still being used selectively, and it's a stupid policy as pointed out by even President Obama by any case...
"As I have already pointed out, minors are treated differently than adults. What's more, as far as I know no 18 year old in any state is required to stay in high school. When you're an adult the rules change. "
So why is it okay to force kids (even 16, 17 year olds) to do it, but not young adults? I don't see how that makes any sense. It's just selective.
"Oh, that makes it ok then. Why not have all 18 years olds report for a 12 year term while we're at it? They'll have time to get really good at whatever career the State chooses for them during that time, and it will be good for their character. It's not much of an imposition...after all, they'll only be 30 when they're allowed to live where they like and work as they like. 30 is still young.
Besides, it's temporary. "
This is easy, it's something called excess.
And on a side note, you'd have a problem with people choosing a career in these fields? :/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the Civilian Conservation Corp would be a great place too.
It is simple, we are losing a sense of community. That is one way to recover it.
As to the military, the brass opposes it even more than civilians. The military though is increasingly a praetorian guard and there are dangers in that which most Americans do not understand.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm not sure what specific set up I would prefer, maybe one where people are more selected based on their skills rather than desires, and I think a conscript based military would have its advantages. But I know I'll get double flamed for saying that here...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear from others 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)where their choices would be based on current manpower and woman power needs in national service departments. That said, it cannot be only two years. That is not enough for military service to be worth a damn. By the time you are done training they are done. And the old WW II Bootcamp (which was shortened) does not work in the modern military. So a service of three years would be good.
This gives you time to train these kids in fire service, or military service, or for that matter any medical technical field, or even road work.
People here oppose it because of the abuses of Vietnam, and there were many. Ironically the brass does not want it for the same reason. It was those draftees that made life impossible for the professional soldiers. They were not afraid for their careers.
There is another reason why industry fears a draftee force. You see, it used to be that draftees did things like KP, for pennies. These days that is done by Halliburton. They also used to man supply chains in CONUS, guess who does it these days. That is another reason to have a draftee military, and return al these support services back to the military.
Another way to implement this, which is done in Mexico, is those kids who want to go to college, fine go to college, but a requirement to get your degree is a year of public service. Yup, you finish college and you go do a year as a TA, dentist assistant, what have you. Kids here would scream if they required to do something before joining the workforce, but that helps to set a sense of community.
I do not expect this to happen in this country without a huge culture change though, so this is truly navel gazing. Right now we are living a great culture of me, I and what matters only to myself. Public service would help correct that, but that won't happen.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think unless you can prove you're an honest CO or have a medical condition that totally prevents it, you should have to do three-four years in the military, and I don't see this as immoral or bad, I actually see it as the opposite. I think this would have benefits to both individuals and society, and yeah I do think most would benefit from military service in some way. I'd do what Germany did once, before they got rid of conscription, that you have to prove that you're a real CO, if not, then you go into the military for awhile. If you don't honestly have a moral objection to it, and just don't want to get a haircut and have to do laps while getting yelled at, and wear a uniform, too bad.
I didn't know Mexico did that, also sounds like an interesting system.
Would you personally allow for any college deferments of any kind?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)ROTC.
If you want to do college first, uncle Sam has this great program... and we know you will love it. We pay for it, but you will owe us not four, but eight years as an officer. (Which is what we are currently doing anyway)
Realize though, I am not just saying military. We need roads to build, disadvantaged communities to serve, and all that. Kids could serve as part of a County Fire Service, including a fire academy. Upon finishing services, they would have the skills to work with a fire department. The track would be instead of volunteers doing their time, people doing their national service doing their time and able to apply for a career.
As to the Mexican system, it has serious issues with implementation, but every college graduate, from both private and public schools has to do a year of servicio social, and Mexico still has a draft (even if they go do close order drill on Saturdays and mostly do public works. That lasts for a year and it is lottery based.)
Americans are just allergic to the concept, and it is cultural. It will not happen, ever. (Or at least until we have a massive change in the culture and I have no idea what will bring that change about)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think I'd want to implement something similar to what you propose, but what would you do with those who would go to college and just try to avoid it temporarily? I mean one who decides to just go into college to get out of the service requ. for awhile? I have to assume that would happen.
And I agree it doesn't have to be just military, though in any real war setting I think the military should get first priority, and even outside such a situation, I think people who pass the phys and such exams who are clearly military material should probably have to go. I'd probably have to give this more thought though.
And again, Mexico's system sounds really interesting.
And yeah true, I know this will never happen, but I think it'd be really good if it did.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)which is also happens right now.
The only way you can get out of that requirement is if you get injured and all that. In cases like that uncle sam pays for the college degree and excuses you from your obligations.
Israel is also a good model to look at, but the officer corp in the US would severely object. Officers in the IDF come from the top 10% of senior NCOs, and are invited into ROTC. Senior Field officers have college degrees, but many junior Officers do not. And to be honest, to lead a platoon you do not need a ring...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I actually would have people take some sort of placement test, just like in the military now, and if they score in a certain way, they would have to train as some sort of officer. But I also think if we have college deferments, if youre GPA is low and you obviously dont care or just cant cut it, you have to do your service.
Either that or jail I guess.
I do think most everyone can contribute in some way.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the Officer Corp had a cow.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I would want to structure a conscription system thats as fair as can be mind you.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not under cultural conditions. Ironically the elites and many in the people agree on this one.
And they enable each other.
As to fair, right now we have a poverty draft, that is the truth. But MC, mostly WHITE Americans, really do not want to discuss that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ironically most here think the elites would want it, but quite the opposite.
I still think it should be in any future progressive agenda, even if Americans would have a big baby fit over it. Seriously...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as a medic in Tijuana, a few of them actually as a commissioned officer. I saw it as a way to pay back the country that let my dad in (with shirt on back that's it) after the Holocaust. I am still friends with a few of those people. We lost a few to a heart attack and diabetes too.
So when I hear people throw hissy fits, I know why they are, but I also know they are enabling the rise of a praetorian guard.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And yeah, I think a few years of inconvenience is worth preventing the kind of military we have now. If you don't want to continue doing the military or a civil service job, then get a discharge after your three or so years. Not a big deal and it's not going to mess up your life, quite the opposite. But the irony is I think a lot of Americans would just stay in their positions because it's a guaranteed job and something to do in life.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the Red Cross, until the civil war started, was part of the army reserve going all the way back to WW II. And people who were COs served in the Red Cross instead. Why I know the options should be there.
The Red Cross in Mexico not only does disaster services. In fact, the heavy lift is done by ambulance services and trauma centers.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's strange to think Mexico has something we should probably emulate 
Anansi1171
(793 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
tblue37
(68,415 posts)too large a military already and way too much military spending. Public service does not need to be military, and it would usually be more beneficial if it is not.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think military/civil service is preferable, though I don't think a conscript military need be very expensive. I do think the military should be able to conscript when a need arises, and I favor more of a selective service system (not to be confused with Selective Service) where a lottery is used when the military is too low on recruits. Seems fair.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)Replacing union firemen with conscripts would soon follow, especially in Republican states.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Volunteers are not union members either. This is the present right now. And volunteers are the way FF find their way to a career.
I am willing to bet it would not change much in large volume urban response zones. It would augment fire personnel during major wild land responses though. These days we do that with Guard.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm not exactly sure why so many people here object to compulsory civil service. I get objection to the military, but not civil.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)has been pretty much in the water. So forced civil service is akin evil, argle, bargle, we need changes in the culture and people do not realize just how much they are enforcing the views they hate, but it is not conscious
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Just right now, a user was trying to troll me by demanding I do some service and was being very sarcastic and snide about it, even though I already said I'm joining the military. It's hard to believe (supposedly) mature adults here are resorting to childish insults and trolling because they disagree with someone.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)remember that. They fought to get rid of the draft that affected them personally. Once we went into a poverty draft, MC families do not give a shit, unless that is little Johnny enlists. Something needs to happen to the culture.
After 911 I expected lines at the recruiters, and two things happened, first no lines. Second Bush told us to go shopping.
I actually tried to enlist. Funny, they actually wanted to give my commission back after they confirmed that indeed I had done that. They needed people with middle eastern language skills all of a sudden and I happen to know hebrew. They were willing to dismiss a few medical issues, not front lines. What they could not excuse was that my husband was a Chief on the front lines. E-7, O-3, did not go well.
Who else showed up? I asked the recruiter, a WW II B-29 pilot, he told the recruiter that he could fly cargo planes, to release bodies for the fight. They thanked him and sent him home, enjoy retirement grandpa. And so it goes, the people who showed up, for the most part were either part of the we don't care what happens to them poverty draft, or we are way too old and broken, or have family already in.
That is when I knew we were in real trouble as a nation and ME and I won.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And btw, thanks for at least trying to serve. Honestly, I think we should have instituted National Service right after 9/11.
"remember that. They fought to get rid of the draft that affected them personally. Once we went into a poverty draft, MC families do not give a shit, unless that is little Johnny enlists. Something needs to happen to the culture. "
Yeah but is it truly impossible to have a fair draft?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)return from where one started ... for example, one of my friends turned down temporarily a full Ph.D. scholarship at a great university to serve in the Peace Corps. When he came out, they would not recognize the scholarship and he ended up working as a janitor, at least then. This, was a brilliant university graduate with a straight 4.0 average with published papers. Also, when he tried to get a temporary job until he could reestablish his college future, prospective employers basically laughed in his face at how he had wasted his life in the Peace Corps. This, is often a very stupid society.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It's not in the interest of the elites and service people appreciate. Short of a major cultural change, it ain't gonna happen. There are many things that are a goof idea, but contrary to the current values and interests of the oligarchy
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)to 'good idea' in your reply typo! LOL!!!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Yeah I know what I propose will never happen, at least in the current climate, but I think it would be good.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)People develop differently, and while some will rise to the occasion, others might well need more time before they do that kind of thing. and it would be expensive, as well as providing a huge temporary work force that would inevitably take jobs away from people.
Bryant
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not "take jobs away"
What are the positive effects you think it would have?
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)Workers have it tough enough as it is without the threat of having their jobs replaced with conscript labor.
Any form of conscription will be used as a club to drive wages down even further.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
TBF
(36,467 posts)This is not a progressive value. I don't think this would even pass muster with the democratic party. I realize this party has gotten more centrist but this is beyond absurd.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)seriously, wtf
greatauntoftriplets
(178,901 posts)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)What's to stop the government from providing jobs to unemployed folks without enslaving them?
Is it your view that unemployment is a result of laziness on the part of the unemployed, and that people will not accept gainful employment except by force?
We could try offering a living wage and decent working conditions, instead, couldn't we?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I've addressed it before, won't again.
My view is social services shouldn't be seen as just career advancements, and we should have an obligation to do them.
clarice
(5,504 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What's your perspective?
clarice
(5,504 posts)1. Young people regardless of race or ethnicity would be required to
spend time with each other working towards a common goal.
2. An ever ready pool of young people that could respond to things like National Disasters
ie: wild fires, earthquakes etc.
3. I think that young people might benefit from a structured...goal oriented program
4. Might even generate a little Patriotism...who knows?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm just trying to forward the discussion. Seems I've been accused of being pro-slavery in the thread
clarice
(5,504 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)"The Vietnam War." It was called "the draft" and it did spare half our population, the female half, but the lengthy experiment on the male half cannot be viewed as a rollicking success.
We also used it for "The Korean War" and "World War II" and even "World War I," aka "The Great War" before Two made it One. We also had it during the Civil War, though it was very easy to buy your way out of service during that fight.
Unwilling, resentful workers don't do good work. The military prefers a professional, motivated force. The military gets better when the standards for enlistment are raised, not lowered.
Make opportunities available, like the All Volunteer Force, the Peace Corps, Americorps, City Year...but don't force people to serve. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of resources. The bureaucracy to chase down and 'punish' people who don't show up costs a fortune, and what's the point in mandating a "make work" job for a year or two if there are no penalties for skipping out? We can--and do--find plenty of volunteers when we simply ask, for everything from Habitat for Humanity builds to candy stripers at hospitals to people who help out at city and town libraries.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think its immoral to have a total volunteer force when in a war, in fact.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's more moral if you and I have to serve than being given the option to defer it to someone else. Generally a conscripted military is better in all cases.
JustAnotherGen
(38,015 posts)My husband was an Italian Marine - he's turning 45 next month. And he didn't just do a 'year' - he did several years and was a tactical sharp shooter who believe it or not - saw combat. We just don't see what Europe "gets into" and "got into".
The problem the US has is that there is not enough 'freedom' within the military. His superiors knew damn well when they were stationed in Pisa that they all used to go up around the tower and smoke weed on their down time. It was just par for the course.
It worked for Italy because they knew 'boys were gonna be boys' and have their fun. And now - Italy no longer has mandatory service and their military is just as strong with more and more women joining after high school every year. 
Now my father was a volunteer soldier in the Vietnam and Korean War Era - and was one of the FIRST Green Berets (Captain in the Army at the time).
He would fight you vociferously on this concept if he were alive. 
He saw more young marines get their heads blown off that had no business being in a combat zone AT ALL. They were there because they had to be - not because they really believed the bullshit he believed about God, Country, The American way and an abject fear that if he didn't do just AWFUL things the 'Commies' would invade us from every direction.
Not every man or woman has that grit and ability to be brainwashed as our first 'elite' soldiers were.
The 'elite soldier' I grew up with became an Arch Pacificist after a Marine barracks was blown up in Lebanon when I was a little girl. War has changed, the tactics have changed, humans have changed, and we only need to defend the homeland.
That doesn't require mandatory service.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And thanks for all this information, very interesting. I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I think conscription would transform the US military for the better in many ways.
JustAnotherGen
(38,015 posts)Was pretty clear when the Gulf War broke out that he would hide my brother in a foreign country before his son would be sacrificed on some rich bastard's altar. It was a promise he made to my mom's dad.
When my dad died in 2011 the Fed came back in November and declared his cancer the result of exposure to the Rainbow of Agents - don't think think for a second orange was the only one. My mom received disability pay back to 1978.
War has hurt the men in my family back to the French Indian war. They leave their blood on the sand, in the jungle, in the forests . .
If one can prove a family history such as mine - they should get several generations of not having to comply.
Its only fair. Let someone else pay the price - I've already paid the price watching my dads intestines fall out the last week of his life. No more from my family - my two nephews in the US will be hidden on the side of a mountain in Italy so damn quick . . . Especially since the Martin verdict.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Germany when it had conscription gave exemptions for people who could prove their families were directly oppressed under the Nazis. I'd certainly give exemptions to your family, possibly even waiver for civil service. But in general, I think mandatory service of some kind is both moral and necessary. I don't think I'm an evil fascist for suggesting this.
JustAnotherGen
(38,015 posts)My husband's ability to keep his "big guns" in Italy is dependent upon his role in the military AND his fitness to use them. When my father in law had a stroke a few years back he had to give up all of his except his hunting rifles - which my brother in law Lou took over. My husband passed his physical in Calabria this past July. Even though he lives in the US they keep tabs on their special forces the way we used to in the US.
This: You can own a gun other than for the purpose of hunting if you serve and only if you serve.
I would totally go for that. It would have to be "going forward".
And we could follow the Italian model of having to register ALL guns with local law enforcement. The reason we don't have open fire massacres there probably has to do with the local police keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Criminals will still have access (never going to stop that illegal gun trade anywhere in the world) but the mentally ill? It might reduce the problem.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And thanks for all this information, and I both respect and appreciate your opinion, and the horrible things your family went through, but I would probably think it was wrong for Italy to get rid of conscription, and I think instead countries, including the US, should probably adopt the Swiss model. Both men and women (not just men if up to me) would have to join the National or Coast Guard after high school, and after a few years, could get a discharge if they want but would keep a weapon at home. The Marines and Air Force and Navy would be drastically scaled back but still totally voluntary which people could enter of their own accord. And for those who cant make it in the military or are truly CO's, civil service would be in place. I think that could actually be done.
handmade34
(24,003 posts)"immoral to have a total volunteer force"
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)handmade34
(24,003 posts)I truly believe you are wise in realizing this is an excellent thing for the well being of our country
I have made sure my children understand they owe something to their Community/Country... they have all participated in either AmeriCorps or some other public servitude...
having people think they do not have to participate in community in some form has caused many of our social and political problems
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It just seems everyone thinks I'm the devil here for proposing this...
What would your proposed system look like? How would it work?
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)The wealthy and connected have always been able to keep themselves out of harm's way in a draft and they always will. Even if they have to serve, there will be champagne units set aside for them, e.g. G.W. Bush's military service.
Medical exemptions are also far more available to the well-off, like Dick Cheney, than to most of us because they can afford all the doctors they need to get the diagnosis they want.
Yet to eliminate those would be a gross injustice, virtually a death sentence, to many with real medical problems.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)we could have a lottery in each state and one boy and one girl from each state can compete in a fight to the death! Great for keeping people in line and for developing character.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts) uppityperson
(116,013 posts)That will never happen. If you think there is a way of making everyone equally unable to get out of military conscription by passing such a law, how about getting those legislators to pass laws against "bad wars"?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Though a draft would be a way of doing that
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)have laws passed making it so and a better use would be laws making wars for the war machine not possible. Which has not happened. Until that law is passed, having a draft is unequal.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And an equal draft would be an impediment to war. It's also more desirable than an all-volunteer military in any case, IMHO.
In my opinion, we'd have to curb the MIC, and then implement conscription.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)I also can not make congress use our military properly.
No matter how often you tell me I can, I can not.
If you can, why have you not done so?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So I'm going to ignore you now. Bye
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 06:49 AM - Edit history (5)
You are going to have to offer exemptions at least for the mentally and physically handicapped and probably also for single parents with dependants. Or are you going to take kids away from teen mothers for three years and put them in foster care while mom does her military service? Does that actually create a net benefit to society? Mental illness also tends to surface in the late teens. Are you going to compel national service from bipolar, schizophrenic and sociopathic kids?
And as long as you have exemptions, you will have people abusing them- girls getting intentionally knocked up to avoid service or people faking major depression, etc.
The other end of it is that there are always going to be cushy jobs and shit jobs. How do you decide who gets what? Random assignment? Most geniuses in many disciplines (computer science, mathematics, physics, etc.) do their most brilliant work before they hit 25. What would be the net benefit to society if Sergey Brin or Bill Gates had spent three years getting shot at or schlepping around sandbags for hurricane protection instead of founding multi-billion dollar tech companies during their peak years for innovation? What about kids working on cancer research, 3-D printing, robotics, data compression, universal translators, renewable energy, biodiversity? What is the actual benefit to society of asking them to put their research and learning on hold for 3 years so they can learn how to march in neat rows versus what they would have accomplished with those three years if they had been allowed to follow their passions and put their actual talents to use?
Are you going to require actors, models, musicians and athletes to do mandatory service? Are you going to compensate them for taking away a good chunk of their best years? Are you going to take on legal liability for potentially career-ending injuries sustained in the course of national service?
And if you don't assign jobs randomly, but try to match them by talents and interests, all of the cushy jobs are going to be soaked up by the rich kids whose parents can afford to get them training in the skills that qualify them for the cushy jobs and all the middle-class and poor kids are going to get the shit ones (except for the rare super-genius).
And that's not even getting into the absolute bureaucratic shitstorm that would be involved in creating a system that could match job requirements against skills, interests and aptitudes for 16.5 million people every year.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But Austria is doing what I propose (only for males though) and they're more successful than the US economically. A lot of other countries do as well, and they only benefit from it, not suffer. They are more successful by your own criteria in fact.
Besides, I think instilling service and obligation and community in people has its own benefits beyond what you mention.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)The US is 6th in GDP per capita in the world. Austria is 11th.
On Bloomberg's ranking of the most innovative countries in the world the US is 3rd and Austria is 17th.
They are not "more successful" that the US economically, nor are they particularly a hotbed of innovation.
There are ways to instill service, obligation and community in people besides forcing them to join the military for three years.
And I don't think instilling values in people is the business of the government in any case. That's what parents are for.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What does "innovation" even mean in this case? The US has a crumbling infrastructure, not just physically, but scientifically and technologically as well. Don't make me laugh. Also, I find it weird I've been accused of using right-wing sources when you're using Bloomberg to back your point.
Here's a link on Austria in particular:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/the_austrian_miracle
Austria has a stronger middle class, stronger economic situation for the average citizen and everyone overall than the US by far. It's not suffering at all due to its mandatory service policy, in fact if anything it's doing better because of it...
"And I don't think instilling values in people is the business of the government in any case. That's what parents are for. "
Then why have mandatory schooling and community service?
"There are ways to instill service, obligation and community in people besides forcing them to join the military for three years. "
I said military/civil service though
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)You can make them die trying, but there is nothing fair about that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)nt
Jgarrick
(521 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And I'll bet if some parent wanted to be shitty, they could go to court and demand wages, like the college interns are now getting.
One of the kids in my family is getting twelve bucks an hour on a college internship--and he screwed around and didn't get his paperwork in early enough; a few of his friends are making twenty, for doing--IMO and I say this with love--very little, indeed.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Then, they'll have to make it a "volunteer" gig, with an option to write a thesis if someone doesn't want to "labor" at community work.
handmade34
(24,003 posts)should absolutely be paid work... I don't think anyone is discussing doing it without compensation... excellent way to have a vested interest in community while saving some bucks or paying off education...
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)It required $300 in gold-- worth roughly $20,000 today-- so that was out of the question for the vast majority of draft-age men at the time. That's why they had the draft riots in New York City in 1863.
MADem
(135,425 posts)In Vietnam, the wealthy avoided it by sneaking their little shitbirds into the National Guard, where in a quaint aspect of service, the entitled farts could "non-vol" for service in Vietnam.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That just made me shake my head.
I have an opinion on this, but will post it in the main thread rather then it getting lost way down in a subthread.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Conscription of any sort for any purpose--be it cutting trees, farming building roads or houses or military service or whatever--keeps wages low. If we want to put off raising the minimum wage, "national service" is a good way to do it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Involuntary servitude is disgusting and immoral, and it should also be unconstitutional.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What about taxation?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The former because it can't be substituted for by anything else, and the latter because it can be paid in any form you choose.
What is immoral and anti-freedom is to demand that particular individuals supply a particular good or service, when the same thing could be achieved by demanding that they supply a certain value of goods of their own choice (i.e. taxing them), and using that to pay volunteers to perform that service.
Volunteer juries would not be able to substitute for conscripted juries, because they wouldn't be as representative of the population, so it's OK to conscript juries.
In a crisis where certain skills are vital to the nation, it's OK to conscript people with those skills.
But if you can achieve a goal by taxing people and using the taxes to pay volunteers then that is better in every way than conscription. It's better for the people who would rather have less money than be forced to supply the service, and it's better for the people who would rather have more money and have to supply the service. It's probably also better for the recipients, because professionals tend to be better at most things than conscripts, but that's not always the case and only a second-order effect. By comparison, conscription harms all those involved and benefits none of them.
The only argument for conscription in place of taxation and hiring is the paternalistic, anti-freedom argument that conscription people will make them into Better people, and you know better than they do what is best for them and should be allowed to make their choices for them for their own good. And I'm absolutely fine with forcing people to do/not do things for other people's good (c.f. taxation, banning murder etc), but I'm very, very hostile to forcing people to do things for their own good against their will; I think that whenever possible choices like that should be left to people.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But it is in other ways, thus making absolutist statements meaningless. It's just a matter of preference to you. You are fine and want people to have to pay and do service in some ways, but not in others. That's not a very convincing argument however.
Also, I was unaware countries like Norway and Austria were "immoral and anti-freedom"
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I certainly am.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)First any compulsory activity is immoral and anti-freedom as you say, then some is okay, but others aren't based on your personal opinion. Okay? Also, I'm just curious, do you find such societies immoral and anti free that mandate citizens do such things, mostly the military?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If you read back, you'll find:
An explanation of why compelling people to provide specific services is generally immoral, and what circumstances that doesn't apply in.
An answer to whether or not I think that having one immoral law makes an entire society immoral.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You personally don't think its necessary so thus you tar it in absolutist condemnation, but in reality, you just don't think it's necessary. But it's not convincing, since I disagree. If you have a more convincing argument, bring it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I've provided a logical sequence of syllogisms from first principles to my conclusion.
If you think there's a flawed step, by all means point it out.
But I suspect that the reason that it's not convincing you is just that you're the kind of person who doesn't find logic convincing when they don't like the conclusion, in which case I won't be able to help you.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But that other such behavior and requirements are okay and moral, because you agree with them.
Why not actually give me an objective reason why it's "immoral and anti-free" which would have to start with you being consistent.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Its a 12 year conscription. Do you find that evil?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 06:34 AM - Edit history (1)
so it's subjective.
Now that we know your argument is subjective, we also know that your line separating immoral from moral is sudbjective.
You draw it here, the OP draws it there. Currently, the OP falls on the same side of subjectivity as the Constitution, and all your reasoning as to why the Constitution is wrong is also subjective.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)The fact that there are options for the type of schooling one does actually falls right into the theme of the OP, giving civic alternatives to military service.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)When the child becomes an adult, they can decide whether or not they want to exercise that right for themselves.
Compulsory state service does not secure individual rights in the same way.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)These people are saying my proposal is "evil" and "slavery" yet they're for mandatory schooling, taxation, jury duty, etc...
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Which is prohibited by the Constitution.
13th Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I don't see any "unless", "but", "only if" or many other qualifiers in there. Only the "except" qualifier as a punishment for a crime.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Otherwise, things like jury duty and community service requ. would be banned.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Then what does "involuntary servitude" mean? Anything other than what you think is OK?
What if the repubs hold the govt someday and decide that every citizen should have to pick cotton for a season, to develop some "community spirit?"
I'm afraid my definition of involuntary servitude would include military service, jury duty, or cotton picking, unless it is a punishment for a crime. Some people disagree, including (currently) the Supreme Court. They are wrong.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If that's the crux of your argument, then you're wrong.
So you're even against jury duty? Oh dear...
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... they are wrong. It happens now and then.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... that wasn't the topic of the thread, was it?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Yet it's not.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... though it should be, if the SCOTUS would get it right, and followed the wording of the 13th.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"What is your definition of involuntary servitude?
Which is prohibited by the Constitution. "
You are implying compulsory service is banned there. Go re-read your posts.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)The wording of the 13th Amendment clearly prohibits involuntary servitude except for punishment for a crime.
Being involuntarily forcibly inducted into the military service for a period of years is clearly involuntary servitude by any realistic definition.
Thus, it is prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
However, for various political, societal and other reasons, the government does not see it that way and the Supreme Court has not yet seen fit to interpret it that way and enforce that particular issue. Thus, the draft registration continues until the SC sees the error of it way.
If the actual draft had to be instituted today (as opposed to just the current registration, of only males, BTW) it would be interesting to hear all the squealing.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Okay.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)nt
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)The definitions of involuntary and servitude are pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
So we will disagree.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I do think you're someone who would benefit from military or civil service, and I'm being serious.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I just recently retired from 40 years with the US Army, both as an active duty Army Signal Officer and Dept of the Army senior civil service engineer. Proud Viet Nam vet, but I wasn't drafted.
I guess you will figure it didn't help me any. 
Seriously, I've been watching your participation here the last few days since you showed up on the radar. I will have to say I like your style so far (compared to a lot of others) but I think we will sometimes disagree. 
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But thanks for the compliment. It's appreciated, and thanks for being civil.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As for community service, I know that the college internships, that used to be UNPAID (and still are UNPAID in overseas venues--want six months abroad? Go work in Peru for free, and have Mom and Dad send money regularly...) must now be paid.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm proposing compulsory service on a universal basis.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And I imagine if someone expressed the forthright opinion that they regarded jury duty as slavery or some sort of forced conscription, someone would toss that person and they wouldn't end up on that jury, anyway....
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So what's your point? If you don't think some service is bad, why shouldn't we expect our citizens to do a few years in service? Why is it so bad?
MADem
(135,425 posts)It will create a new bureaucracy--more "big" government.
It will create a secret list of "no show" and "no work" jobs available only to the privileged few--much like Organized Crime uses to pay their foot soldiers; they shake down a business owner, he puts Criminal One and Criminal Two on the payroll, and they get a regular check, a plausible tax story, health insurance and workman's comp.
It will produce a slew of angry, pissed off, "I don't want to be doing this shit, it's stupid, it's dumb, I HATE IT" young adults, who won't be as thrilled as you seem to be about the idea.
It will create a criminal class of good kids who just don't want to waste their time cleaning bedpans, chopping wood, laying sidewalks, cleaning up graffitti, or doing other stupid jobs that will be on the "government list" of acceptable endeavors.
It's a shit idea. This isn't the Great Depression. It's not even close.
You want "community service?" Join the Peace Corps. Join the military. Join Americorps. Sign up for City Year. But don't force people to embrace your vision--they won't, even if you insist.
FWIW, I spent decades in the military--I understand the concept of public service. It's no fun to try to supervise people who don't want to be there.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So you remain very unconvincing. Sorry :/
MADem
(135,425 posts)
I think you don't "see" any evidence because you are unaware of your own history.
Here, let me help you -- here's a link to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States
And you're not sorry at all--but really, you should be, because you don't have your facts in order, I'm afraid.
I don't need to convince you, either. The bottom line is as follows--this idea just ain't happening. There's no taste for it, it will cost tens of billions to simply get it off the ground, and even more to maintain it, it will not provide any "value added," it will create a bloated bureaucracy of self-important keepers of "favored" slots, and with all of the NSA agita, no one wants their name and particulars on a "national database" of serfs.
So think what you'd like, as you'd like. You will not get your wish. Further, to flip your script, you haven't convinced me--or most people here--that this idea is sustainable, reasonable or even desired by most.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But any direct sources for what you say? Because I've presented sources that contradict them
You're right it's not happening, and we'll all suffer as such. Oh well?
MADem
(135,425 posts)citations at the end of the essay.
I was trying to make it easy for you; you don't seem to have any background on this history of the topic and that is a fairly good, if abbreviated, version.
What "sources" have you presented? All I've seen is some opinion.
Links, please.
And we're not suffering--we're far better off without an absurd and wasteful expenditure that does nothing but stifle creativity, hamstring young people, create make-work jobs and build a massive government database of personal details about individual citizens that the government just doesn't need to have.
Like I said--you want to serve? Go sign up. There are plenty of places where you can apply your talents. Use some of that swell "initiative" and go for it!
dilby
(2,273 posts)Yeah I will pass on that, what would be gained by forcing people into slave labor for the Government just so they can vote or be considered real citizens. Furthermore I am sure with your thinking you will be grandfathered in so you won't have to be a slave but people under 18 well they are not as good as you so it's ok to consider them as sub citizens.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kind of silly hyperbole, no?
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I presume you're invokong Norway because you think we have mandatory military service. We don't anymore. So I'd be much obliged if you didn't use Norway as an example to support your idea, which only sounds good to privileged non-minorities.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Now in practice most may get out of it, which is dumb, but oh well, but that's besides the point here.
Your comment on privileged non-minorities makes no sense.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)but de facto it doesn't, and that is what counts. Believe me, I work with 18-19-year old Norwegians, and they are not conscripted. In fact, it is an increasing problem for those who want have a career in the armed forces that the numbers accepted are limited, as the competition for the spots are fierce. The calling in is comparative to the US Selective service registration, and is, as you noted, also mandatory for women. It is to classify them according to service capability. In addition, these teens cannot be ordered into combat zones even if they are in the military - they have to volunteer for that.
As for my comment about privileged non-minorities, pretty much only white middle class Americans have the attitude that a mandatory service for all teenagers will somehow 'straighten' out today's youth. The rest of us know full well that teens of color, LGBT teens, poor teens, et al have obstacles enough to overcome, if they aren't going to have to postpone getting proper jobs and going to school, and leave their families in addition to everything else. Many White middle class American teens may be so spoiled that they would benefit from a year or two of service, but being spoiled isn't their fault, it is their parents' and the society that favors them, and anyway they would get the cushy, not-really-a-sacrifice positions where they get even further ahead because they will have a chance to network with their peers, while the minority teens will be given the worst and most dangerous jobs, and, being far from their families, be even more vulnerable to rape and exploitation.
I think your idea isn't just bad, I think it is dangerous for the most disadvantaged teens, and if implemented, would be incredibly detrimental.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And yes, you can pull the "but I live there" card, but this is the internet, and anyone can claim anything. Present some sources and evidence on this. I find it odd that a country that allegedly is phasing out conscription would expand it to another part of the population. But even if this were true, it's kind of irrelevant to the point you're responding to. But by all means, prove me wrong.
"As for my comment about privileged non-minorities, pretty much only white middle class Americans have the attitude that a mandatory service for all teenagers will somehow 'straighten' out today's youth."
This of course is nonsense as the bill in question I brought up is being pushed by a black congressman in New York, and many of the links I gave don't come from "white middle class Americans". Furthermore others agreeing with me here aren't white middle class Americans, neither am I. So this point doesn't stand. White middle class privileged kids and their families would hate this the most.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)since you refuse to trust those with whom you discuss. I will therefore relieve you of the burden, and not continue this discussion - I will, however, in a parting shot, point out that I am a 12-year veteran of DU, and you haven't been here a month. I wonder who is more trustworthy.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm not going to just trust someone I've met on a message board out of the blue with no sources being presented...
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Their children will be attending college in another country, or paying for various exemptions, when draft age comes along.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)No, they will get out of it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)At least give a rebuttal.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Because the elite pretty much do play a different set of rules. They have historically been very able to bypass the draft and will likely continue to do so in the future given the strong link between money and power that still exists.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)The rich get out of taxes constantly. Remember that whole thing a few years ago about how Mitt Romney pays substantially lower taxes than the average American? If there was ever an argument against taxation it is that the population is under no obligation to fund a government that shifts the tax burden away from corporate entities and wealthy individuals.
I'm sorry but unless the elite are 100% forced to enroll in this program as well in an equal capacity you are only reinforcing oligarchy as normal people will get 1-2 years taken out of their lives while the elite get cushy jobs that will also likely be used to justify equally cushy employment later on. Good luck enforcing that here.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"I'm sorry but unless the elite are 100% forced to enroll in this program as well in an equal capacity you are only reinforcing oligarchy as normal people will get 1-2 years taken out of their lives while the elite get cushy jobs that will also likely be used to justify equally cushy employment later on. Good luck enforcing that here. "
You can never get full on 100 percent compulsion, but close to there. It helps to bridge the gap in Switzerland, for example.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)I am saying that there is a decent grounds for arguments against taxation based on the fact the tax burden has been shifting away from the rich for decades and putting that burden on the middle class and the moderately wealthy. There is even a growing rhetoric on eliminating progressive taxation and placing the tax burden back on the poor. People would be reasonably justified in a tax revolt under those conditions.
I find it disturbing how cavalier you are about the immense inequality you are proposing. People are essentially telling you the elite will get out of this scot free while you literally take away 1-2 years of everyone's lives and you seem perfectly comfortable with this.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)The elite wouldn't get out of it though.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)How would the elite not get out of it? You just keep saying things and then reiterating them when pressed with no or very weak evidence for your claim.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Also you didn't answer my first question.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)My support for taxes is contextually grounded, nothing more to say about it.
Good luck enforcing those severe penalties on the elite. You do realize we had severe penalties for draft dodging in the past and yet the children of the elite still got off light. I am beginning to suspect you don't know that much abut history and are winging it with your arguments here, of which you have not substantiated a single one. I suggest you go back to the drawing board with this.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So the rich get out of taxes, yet you want them anyway..um okay
Thing can be equitable and fair, even if you're so pessimistic that you think they can't. Nothing more to say to you on that.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Full stop. In order for your argument to stand we would have to have a very different government from the one we have now. Your support for mandatory service without touching any other aspect of society is barbaric in its consequences.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And compulsory service would be a long way toward doing that in a series of progressive reforms.
I think even you'd be for mandatory service in a better society.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)That will never happen. I will be shocked if we see any meaningful progressive legislature that won't also be a stalking horse for funneling more wealth to the wealthy or have them asserting more control. Even the ACA, though it did some good, was a massive gift to insurance companies.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why not just call it quits and retreat into your own life? You seem to just be wasting your time. If I believed as you do, I wouldn't waste one second of my time with politics.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Perhaps you would like to offer a counter-argument to my claim that the economic elite will continue to dominate into the foreseeable future? If you have none then I would abandon the wishful thinking and get to the task of changing that. That is my point, your fanciful notion of egalitarian compulsory service cannot exist so long as the oligarchs are calling the shots because they will warp it to their liking and turn it into something dark.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If that were the case, I wouldn't even bother with politics and would just help the society crash and burn.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)To be resolute without hope than hopeful and foolish. Things are really bad, if you seriously want to make some changes you have to look at the reality of society, not what you want to see.
Accelerationism is an acceptable response to the situation as it stands, I think. Not one I would personally endorse but I can see the appeal.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Your prerogative but I think there can be more productive things for you to do than just wasting your time with futile endeavors, no? If I thought like you, I'd just put a barrier in my mind on socio-politics and just live my life to the fullest I guess it's a comforting mindset you have.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Liz I am not sure what your argument is here. You have gone into a weird area with this line of reasoning.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)ok... now you need to qualify it. If you said Civil War, sure. If you said Vietnam, yup.
For the record most of the US Military history that military has been a small, volunteer force. That volunteer force has always had the poor serve in it, but we seem to have no issue with a poor draft.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)They will get out of it again. I'm a poor person who was of draft age when the Iraq war was starting. I had a choice not to join the military, and chose not to. Your proposal takes away that choice. You may say that it takes away the choice from the elites as well. However, in actual practice they find a way out. Your original post even mentions some exceptions. The elites will hire great lawyers to make sure those exceptions apply to their children, even if they aren't supposed to. In effect, this would just burden the poor. I prefer to not deal in theory, and deal with how policies will actually be implemented. In reality, the rich find a way out of the draft. Look at all the current elite politicians who found a way out of Vietnam.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I'm not talking a draft, Im talking universal military service.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)One of the difficult parts was the need for allies because we didn't have enough troops.
Your draft gives us plenty of troops to act without allies. It would make events like the Iraq war more likely.
"But the rich people's kids would be at risk to!!"
No, they wouldn't. First, they'd find a way to buy their way out. If that turned out to not be workable, the kids of the rich people would get nice, cushy assignments protecting Kansas from invasion, while the poor folk are sent to Iraq.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)argument.
In a necessary war, I think we should always draft.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If a draft meant unnecessary wars would not happen, then the Vietnam war would not have happened.
And yet, there was a Vietnam war.
What happened to the children of the rich and powerful? They bought their way out with various schemes (such as college deferments), or they joined the National Guard, or other military units that kept them far away from Vietnam - lots protected Germany from the USSR. W protected Texas's airspace in the National Guard....until he stopped bothering to show up.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon had plenty of poor folks to throw into the war.
If you'd prefer non-US examples, the same thing happens in Israel. Kids of the rich and powerful get nice, safe office jobs. Kids of the poor get sent into danger.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And anyway, all of what you've said I've already answered.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Did they have a course on it in your high school?
What is your memory of that time?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Whats your point?
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
on something that happened long before they were born.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)about how you are 19. Just find it odd that someone your age could know much about that war. What books did you read on Viet Nam?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I just know enough in relation to this topic, thanks to Google
pangaia
(24,324 posts)did they also teach you that the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on Bunker Hill?
Did they teach you that the Declaration of Independence was written and discussed mostly by rich white men, but it was mostly poor white men who did the dying in the Revolutionary War?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Briefly touched on..?
I mean, this is the history of the beginning of the United States and your high school just 'briefly touched' on it.
God save us all.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The reason we fought the war was the domino theory. Which, turns out, was utterly fucking moronic. And as an added bonus, they knew it was at the time.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Most Vietnamese here where I live would be insulted by your statement
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)South Vietnam didn't deserve to be defended, being a murderous dictatorship that gleefully wiped out villages and then would shift the blame to the United States. The ruling party of South Vietnam directly patterned themselves off of fascism and imposed a colonial dictatorship over the people, having no regard for their welfare or future.
We had no right to help prop up that government and in this regard we are just as bad as the worst colonial powers.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Where are you getting this from?
Would it be okay to defend say South Korea from North Korea, or Japan from China, or hypothetically a democracy that respected human rights from invasion? I just want to get to know your perspective here.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)A Bright Shining Lie has some good info on the political ideology of the South Vietnamese government and how the brutality of the South Vietnamese joined with the technofetishism of the American military leadership to produce a total failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_South_Vietnamese_election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War
Or, you know, the general now common knowledge about the composition of the South Vietnamese government and the fact that the south vietnamese government has a direct lineage of the French colonial holding.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I didn't know this perspective before.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lots and lots of countries we did not protect. Why were they ignored, and South Vietnam get a major war?
The Domino Theory.
Anti-communists were absolutely, positively sure that communists were correct - that as more countries became communist, more and more countries would follow them.
It was stupid then. We still did it.
But much more importantly, what were we protecting South Vietnam from?
The South Vietnamese. They had become rather tired of living in a kelptocracy. Some turned to communism, and North Vietnam's support. Others tried to push for reforms...and failed. Largely thanks to US support for the South Vietnamese government, which was due to the Domino theory.
One of the things you're going to realize as you move on through life is there is a simple explanation for every major world event. And that explanation is always wrong.
That's fine. They're welcome to their erroneous opinion.
Btw, most of the ones who managed to get to the US were on the wealthy side of the kelptocracy.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So are you saying we shouldn't protect our NATO allies for example because other countries aren't in NATO? Come on...
2banon
(7,321 posts)You have no idea of what you're talking about. no fucking idea.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Seriously though, why don't you just show me how I'm wrong.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, Kagan, Wolfie, the entire PNAC imperialist/militarist psychopaths wanted to invade Iraq long before Shrub was appointed president.
They wanted Clinton to do it and he refused.
When those towers fell, baby,these guys were gleeful. Their mouths were drooling...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Time to get rid of it
pangaia
(24,324 posts)an all volunteer force made no difference.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You have a terrible definition of "not happen".
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"So, the question: Would we still be in Iraq today – or even have gone to war with Iraq – if there was a military draft in this country?
Look at our involvements in past wars. From the Civil War to World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and even Vietnam, the United States had a military draft - and those wars were all far shorter than the Iraq debacle.
Coincidence? I think not...
We need to bring back the draft. Our founding fathers knew its value. That's why they formed a citizen-based militia. When George Washington, in his farewell address warned us to beware of foreign entanglements, he knew that a citizen militia – what today is closest to a draft – was the best way to prevent us from jumping into foreign military misadventures.
A draft system is a great leveler. When there's a draft, what our founders called a "citizen's militia," every single American has some skin in the game.
Fewer than 1 percent of Americans have been touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fewer than 1 percent of Americans have experienced the pain and suffering of losing a loved one on a distant battlefield.
But if we had a draft, our involvement in wars would affect everyone, from Main Street to Capitol Hill. The children of our nation's lawmakers would be serving in the military, putting a very personal face on a war. History shows that when we have a draft, our lawmakers are less enthusiastic to start wars, and more enthusiastic to end them quickly."
At least read what you're given and not skimp for a second looking for something to find to dismiss it, which you obviously did.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Fewer than 1 percent of Americans have been touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fewer than 1 percent of Americans have experienced the pain and suffering of losing a loved one on a distant battlefield.
If MORE people experienced that pain? That's how to shorten wars, not prevent them mind you, but shorten them--by increasing the loss felt by ordinary Americans. That is, sorry, the worst idea I have ever heard. Ever.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)because from reading this thread I can see you are not movable from this disastrous position. If you accept that wars will still happen but you think that causing more, and more widespread, suffering from war will produce good results, then you have completely lost the plot.
At least most people who suffer from the illusion of involuntary servitude think that compulsory service will prevent war. I disagree with, but can at least understand the idealism of, that notion. What I can't understand is how you can sit there and say, yeah it won't prevent war but at least all the bloodshed will affect more families. And your goal? A shorter war than the DECADE we've spent in Iraq. So still wars, no less death and mayhem, and only Vietnam-length bloodbaths fought by conscripted non-soldiers. And you ask why that's a bad idea. Merde.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It will prevent wars as I said, but sometimes wars are necessary, and we should all have to fight then. Let me guess, the draft in WW2 was evil and bad? Give me a break.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)You have been informed of this several times. My advice to you is to read a history book or two. If that doesn't work, talk to people who actually lived during that time period.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It certainly ended it when it went out of control however.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)What needed to be done? Are you saying we needed to wage war against Vietnam?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)The Vietnamese here would largely agree with me.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)See, your previous claim was that Iraq wouldn't have happened if there was a draft.
Now you're saying it would be shorter.
Which is why they allowed the rich to literally buy their way out of the draft.
Oh wait....that makes no sense.
The problem with your theory is the history in it is utterly false.
First, the wealthy have always bought their way out of the draft. Up until the 1900s, they could literally buy their way out. After the 1900s, they used their money to avoid it - deferments, joining the Guard, or getting a utterly safe assignment.
In fact, Washington's militia was drawn from about 30% of the population. Not 100%.
Second, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. By several different people. Yes, the theory is a draft affects everyone. Reality is a draft only affects about the bottom 60%. And this has been true every single time it has been tried.
Third, a draft means a much larger military. Which means the neocons have plenty of troops to carry out their plans - their plans did not stop at Iraq.
To put it another way, we wouldn't be talking about how long the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were. We'd be talking about how long the Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran wars were. Because with a draft, we could have gone into all four of those countries. Resistance at home? Well, you're back to that bottom 60% issue.
Wrong. And this has been shown to you over and over again.
The theory is it affects everyone. The reality is that never happens. In any country. It doesn't even happen in the examples you gave of Israel and Finland. The wealthy always get out of it. Either literally out of it, or they get nice cushy office assignments. As an added bonus, they get to network with the kids of other rich people, leading to even more advantages post-service.
Nope. Again, you are speaking about what you want to have happened. That is not what actually happened. Our lawmakers were just fine with Vietnam. Heck, our lawmakers were thrilled with the Spanish-American war, an utterly and completely optional conflict.
What actually happens is the children of lawmakers did not go to war. They stayed home. They got deferments, or they got into the Guard (despite the Guard having no space), or they got to work at the Pentagon for their entire service.
The reason the previous wars were faster is they were total wars. The goal was to butcher the enemy as brutally as possible. That resulted in an opponent who had been utterly and completely crushed, so there was little to no resistance left at the end of the war.
For example, Japan basically had no cities left at the end of WWII. Firebombing Tokyo killed more Japanese than both atomic bombs. We slaughtered vast swaths of their civilians. And then we looked at what we wrought. And decided that we were a bit too good at utter annihilation. So from Korea on, the goal was no longer butchering the opposing country - we started fighting Limited Wars.
That's why Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam, for that matter) lasted so long. We did not utterly annihilate our opponents, so they were not broken. They were still large chunks of the population willing to resist. But it only takes a few WWII pictures to show exactly why we started holding back.
Now there's an ironic comment.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not only have I not "moved the goal post", you don't even understand what I and the article you're responding to is even proposing, you're just battling a strawman in your head, so I'm not going to waste my time responding piece by piece to your post. For example, you say "Which is why they allowed the rich to literally buy their way out of the draft. " which of course is not what Hartmann was talking about, he was talking of Jefferson's universal militia proposal, which was partially in response to what you are saying. You go on to describe colonial military drafts which are irrelevant and kind of self-defeating, because Jefferson's proposal was in reaction to that. So I don't feel I need to bother further when you can't even get your facts straight.
"Which means the neocons have plenty of troops to carry out their plans - their plans did not stop at Iraq. "
See what I mean? You'd expect neocons to be promoting it in Congress, and not the only ones promoting it to be Democrats, and you'd only see right-wing neoconservative sources ever promoting it, and not liberal sources like Salon, Slate, Truth-Out, etc. So your posts are just laden with hyperbole, exaggerations and emotional responses.
So if you actually want to respond to what I say and propose in the future, you're free to do so. And don't be so rude.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You are insisting that I am not reading the plan because you are very fond of the plan. I've read the plan.
I've read the same plan, proposed again and again, over the last 20 years. (And I would have been able to read it before that, but I was too young and politically indifferent before my 20s.)
What I'm talking about is the implementation of the plan. You can't ignore implementation when deciding if something is a good plan or not. Because if you can't implement the good parts of a plan, you are left with only the bad parts.
The "good" part of your plan is the rich and powerful would have "skin in the game". That is impossible to implement. So you're left with the bad parts of your plan.
No, but it is what you were talking about. You talked in glowing terms about Washington's militia being an example of your plan.
The rich literally bought their way out of Washington's militia. Rich draftees could hire someone to take their place.
But you're now moving the goalposts again - now your lengthy glowing commentary about Washington was about Jefferson.
So Jefferson's proposal was in reaction to the Spanish-American war, which happened 72 years after his death.
High school taught you that there were all these nice, pat reasons that things happen. Because they're trying to jam 10,000 years of history into 4 years, with students massively distracted 70% of the time.
Fact is, the world is a hell of a lot more complex, and your schooling did a very crappy job of teaching that. Because all high schools do.
Neocons do like the draft. They also know it is massively unpopular, so they do not push for it publically.
You can't just trust the public comments people make, as High School taught you - To take it back to Vietnam, High School taught you to only look at LBJ's statements. They didn't teach you to look at the events surrounding those statements, nor to look at how LBJ handled similar situations in other parts of the world, nor look at the private communications that has since leaked. It turns out LBJ wanted the public to believe some things about Vietnam that he did not really believe.
OTOH, there have been leaks from neocon organizations where they talk about bringing back the draft. In fact, they point out some liberals could be made to be "useful idiots" by falsely claiming the draft could ensnare the wealthy.
The liberals you point to who like the draft like their fantasyland version, where they wave their hands and declare that wealthy can't skip out. The problem is that is completely and utterly impossible to implement - which is why it failed every time it has been attempted.
Why propose something that will not work? Well it turns out these guys are interested in selling articles. Because that's their job - get people to see advertisements when reading their articles. No readers, no advertising dollars, no job. How can you tell that this is the case? The utter inconsistency in some of their other proposals - for example, many of the same commentators will claim tax hikes wouldn't work because the rich would just dodge the taxes. The same rich folks can magically dodge the law in one situation, but are utterly unable to do so in another situation.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Because I saw this: "OTOH, there have been leaks from neocon organizations where they talk about bringing back the draft. In fact, they point out some liberals could be made to be "useful idiots" by falsely claiming the draft could ensnare the wealthy. "
Where's the evidence of this? If you can't find the evidence for this, I'm going to ignore you. This will go a long ways to demonstrating you can actually back up anything you say. If not, I'll know to ignore what you say as just a bunch of nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No need to stand up a win-hold-win force; it would already be on the books, ready to say "let's roll" and hustle on over there. The numbers would be readily available; either in active service or reserves.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)The only thing that stopped Dubya from invading Iran was a shortage of cannon fodder.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And we didn't invade Iran because our interests moved away from Iran. There's nothing to deter such attacks with an all-volunteer force, let's face it.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but is offering early retirements starting in the Air Force because they were ordered to reduce the size of the force to historic lows. How exactly does that math work?
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)If they had enough cannon fodder. The military was not being downsized then.
Since it is being downsized NOW, what would you do with all these troops and how would you pay them?
How much an you planning to cut military pay?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so all these hypotheticals are happening with a volunteer force.
And as far as Iran is concerned, they did not care about the troops, then or sadly... now.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they are also going to try to make TRICARE PRIME an HMO and privatize it.
So let's just say this argument is not going to make any headway with me.
We buy the toys, but cut on the pay, we have always done that, except actually, when people have a stake.
Of course service is not just in the military, but that is a whole different discussion,
But to make my point crystal... all these ugly things you all talk about as hypotheticals are happening already with a volunteer force. So let's just say... I am all but impressed.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)The cuts would have to be far worse. We can't afford to multiply the defense budget.
City Lights
(25,738 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's not absolute.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)opted out, nearly universally.
In the Civil War you had to pay a substitute to go in your place. By Vietnam there were nearly endless ways for the well-heeled and well-connected to get out of it.
Read more history.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and given we are an oligarchy we all are just navel gazing. But a national service is not profitable. The current draft on the poor is though.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Again, you need to read more history.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)We had a selective draft, which is different. So you should learn your history first.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(5,180 posts)What don't you get about this? Who is going to put them in jail?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Since you're googling, Google President Jimmy Carter and draft amnesty.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)We see what happens when the rich commit crimes. The worst "jail time" they ever get is rehab or some cushy place somewhere with a wait staff for barely a couple of years, if that long, which is still miles better than war. What part of the rich run this country and will ALWAYS get out of things they do not want to do, do you not understand? You are living in a fantasy world with your idealist view of this. That is just not how the real world works. You will learn in time, but right now, you are really showing your lack of experience in the real world.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Come on...
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)ESPECIALLY in America, the rich will ALWAYS get out of what they do not want to do. They do it now. That is the way it always has worked and the way it always will work.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ever?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)A draft is nothing more than the enslavement of poor people to use as cannon fodder.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And a draft would put the brakes on war.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)a national requirement of service means that you do not need Halliburton to do KP duty, for example.
Nor is there a need for private contractors to do base security, like we have right now.
I could go on.
And do not get me started on why the Brass does not want it either.
Nor will it happen even if 99% of the people wanted it, since we are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy. But that is another discussion. On this one, the elites and many of the people agree, but for very different reasons. And the reasons why the elites do not want it, are the same reasons they want to privatize everything.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Often much more if there's specialized training following initial entry training.
It costs the price of an ad, or a phone call to contract a security firm, and a couple of fingerprint/background checks, a few days of training and supervision, to get a civilian guard standing duty at a gate.
MUCH cheaper than twenty grand plus before you even see the body on the base.
That's why they don't put "tooth" in "tail" jobs when there's a war going on. In peacetime, those positions can be used to train security forces in observation techniques, installation access limitation, setting security zones and perimeters, and doing things like vehicle and package searches (as well as supervising a cadre of both civilian and military personnel) but when forces are shorthanded they aren't going to recruit extra military end strength to do a job that a civilian, who can be hired and later fired, can do.
It's all about the bottom line.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)With the current state of our military (exclusionary militarism in the ranks and a sexual abuse epidemic) feeding conscripts into this system is a recipe for disaster.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I think a conscript based military is more healthy in the long run.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)So how do we go from putting people through a horrifying meatgrinder to building a service structure that produces skilled, motivated citizens? This would require a complete restructuring of the military as it stands.
In theory it is a worthy idea but as it stands it would be an utter disaster.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Two, most people in the military don't see combat. Three, I'm more talking a military/civil requirement for people turning 18.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)When has a draft stopped a war before it started?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Yeah, no, offhand comments from one Greek Captain are not sufficient. You are going to have to explain why this previously untapped phenomenon didn't save scores of men from the draft from dozens of nations since the levee en masse formed the modern conception of conscription.
Liz there are good reasons for having mandatory service under certain conditions but "it will prevent war" isn't high on that list.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I've given you plenty of articles, comments, etc on it. I'll just have to keep doing so until it gets drilled into your head I guess.
"You are going to have to explain why this previously untapped phenomenon didn't save scores of men from the draft from dozens of nations since the levee en masse formed the modern conception of conscription."
It has though.
"Liz there are good reasons for having mandatory service under certain conditions but "it will prevent war" isn't high on that list. "
What are these certain circumstances.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Liz, come on. Did the draft save people in World Wars 1 and 2? Korea? Vietnam? The Napoleonic era campaigns? Franco-Prussian war? The Imperial Japanese campaigns in Asia? Oh, no it didn't. You have only been posting opinion articles for proof, this is not sufficient and if you haven't noticed nobody in this thread has been convinced by them.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You're really going to argue WW2 wasn't? Come on. Vietnam is a bit debatable, but I think the cause was just. I would have fought in it.
Some wars are necessary and a draft is only moral in that situation.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You said in plain terms that a draft prevents wars, and yet it didn't prevent those wars. In order for your claim that drafts prevent wars to stand it needs to prevent wars even on the side of the instigator. If this is not the case, as I have demonstrated and you have just conceded, then there is more to war prevention than simply having a draft.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't think all of those wars should have or could have been prevented.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You give no qualifications for that claim. Liz, your argument here is simply not that good.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)That's all I need to know about you and your opinion.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Do you actually believe that, "Korea? Vietnam? The Napoleonic era campaigns? Franco-Prussian war? The Imperial Japanese campaigns in Asia," were.. necessary wars? May I ask, necessary.... for whom? 'Necessary' is a very loaded, relative term
I am very familiar, for one thing, with East Asian history. So, I will speak to that.
My wife is Chinese. She was born during the Cultural Revolution and has PhDs in both Chinese language and literature, and, more importantly, Chinese and East Asian History. Her grandparents on her father's side lived through Shanghai. (Do you know of what I speak without 'googling' it?)
I have lived in both Japan and China, speak and read Japanese and Mandarin, so can converse with people as well as read primary source material.
In Japan, I lived in Kyoto and Tokyo, briefly in Sabae.
I lived much longer in China - in Qingdao , Xi'an, briefly in Chongqing (Do you know the historical significance of this city without 'googling' it?) and, most relevantly, Shangai.
So the question remains, for WHOM is a given war necessary?
My dear Liz, you need to do a little primary research..
I know you said your father is/was in the military and you are going to join the army, but that doesn't excuse you from knowing what you are talking about.
This is no longer high school. Stop playing footsie on the intertubes with wikischmiki and 'the google.' That is not research.
Here's a question you CAN research on the google and come away with a pretty reasonable answer - Why is Qingdao pijo so damn good?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I do think Korea and Vietnam were necessary, esp. Korea.
"So the question remains, for WHOM is a given war necessary? "
The nation as a whole.
"Here's a question you CAN research on the google and come away with a pretty reasonable answer - Why is Qingdao pijo so damn good? "
I'm too young to legally drink
"This is no longer high school. Stop playing footsie on the intertubes with wikischmiki and 'the google.' That is not research. "
I'm the only one citing anything...
pangaia
(24,324 posts)What nation as a whole? The US of A?
Not me, and not millions upon millions of others.
Here's a quote you can google.. "The fucking hippies were right."
You say that you are the only one citing anything. No you are not, Many, many people here are defending their positions with historical facts.
But I try to lead you to think.
"I'm too young to legally drink ."
But you can still hit the 'google;' button. I was offering you a chance to learn something, and not about pijo,, but you missed the chance.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"Here's a quote you can google.. "The fucking hippies were right." "
In what sense?
"View profile
What nation as a whole? The US of A?
Not me, and not millions upon millions of others. "
You're not an American?
"You say that you are the only one citing anything. No you are not, Many, many people here are defending their positions with historical facts. "
They're defending their statements by stating things without sources, claiming they're facts.
"But you can still hit the 'google;' button. I was offering you a chance to learn something, and not about pijo,, but you missed the chance. "
So trying to get me drunk or something?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Although I had the quote a bit off.. It should be--
"The dirty fucking hippies were right."
Do it, and you may answer your own question. Or at least start you questioning.. That's the only way to learn anything.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)South Vietnam was a colonial holding and more or less a fascist dictatorship.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It should get you an interesting response.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You do know they are the folks who supported the US. Some were high in both the civilian and military government and were not quite lovers of democracy. Vietnam was not about democracy, freedom, justice or anything like that. Like most wars it was a resource war, and a brush war.
History is rarely that black and white. WW 11 comes the closest to a just war under the Just War Doctrine. And yes, we have a large community here. Since you are from California I can almost guess now as to where.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So it's just weird to read this perspective, because you never hear it over here.
Well, take a wild guess where I am
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and you are getting it from their own oligarchy who fled.
You talk to the peasants....
We got involved in a civil war, as part of the containment strategies of the Soviet Union. And we were to a point lucky, the USSR or China decided not to overtly play.
It was a cold war hot flash, but it was not about democracy, or freedom or any of the rest of the crap we are told every time we go to war.
WW II was the closest to any of that, and it was by accident.
While I support national service, I know wars are full on propaganda efforts, even 30 years after the fact. And I also know that once you start digging into the causes of individual conflicts, it gets ugly.
We went to war over oil, yes I will be blunt.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)From the poor areas you don't see on TV though.
Well, okay they're the oligarchy that fled, but my vietnamese friends certainly aren't rich. Did any of the ones who supported the communist come to the US? I guess not, but I would like to talk to Vietnamese who actually sided with the Viet Cong, since apparently according to some here they actually were popular? I always thought we were the "good guys" so to say?
"WW II was the closest to any of that, and it was by accident. "
How do you mean?
"While I support national service, I know wars are full on propaganda efforts, even 30 years after the fact. And I also know that once you start digging into the causes of individual conflicts, it gets ugly. "
Yeah but isn't national service a way of reducing popularity of stupid and bad wars?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I guessed that you were not in La Jolla or Rancho bernardo
The good guys is part of the propaganda. And no, we were not the good guys, or the bad guys, wars are always far more shades of gray than that. But we supported a couple governments that tortured their own people. They also maintained and enforced a social system that prevented others from achieving a decent life, where death squads were used.
Nuance... and a lot of this was becuase we wanted access to markets, and resources. In a way we won thirty years later since we now have access to those markets and those resources, and that cheap labor is helping to depress American wages.
How do you mean?
The Holocaust, though the Government knew of it as early as 1943 at least and refused to do anything about it until the camps were liberated. And not just the US Government, all allied governments. Antisemitism was very popular back then.
Yeah but isn't national service a way of reducing popularity of stupid and bad wars?
It did do that with Vietnam, which was a bad war, why you will not see it. The oligarchy does not want to have tens of thousand of kids in front of the White House raising havoc. And a privatized military is good for business. As I said to you in a PM both sides got similar lessons from Vietnam. The people who marched against it, will never allow it again in their watch. The oligarchy does not want it, because they know it is bad for social cohesion. The oligarchy also likes cheap labor abroad since it depresses wages here and destroys a middle class that has the time to fight them.
As you probably are starting to gather, some of us have a very nuanced, partly from life experience, partly from study, of life. It never is black and white
And the we are the good guys always, that is american exceptionalism, and that is a myth.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Mostly because of the food..
"I guessed that you were not in La Jolla or Rancho bernardo "
Lol, no. East Garden Grove
"The good guys is part of the propaganda. And no, we were not the good guys, or the bad guys, wars are always far more shades of gray than that. But we supported a couple governments that tortured their own people. They also maintained and enforced a social system that prevented others from achieving a decent life, where death squads were used.
Nuance... and a lot of this was becuase we wanted access to markets, and resources. In a way we won thirty years later since we now have access to those markets and those resources, and that cheap labor is helping to depress American wages. "
So nothing about the Vietnam War had to do with democracy?
"The Holocaust, though the Government knew of it as early as 1943 at least and refused to do anything about it until the camps were liberated. And not just the US Government, all allied governments. Antisemitism was very popular back then. "
Seriously? I believe you, but do you have any sources on this?
"It did do that with Vietnam, which was a bad war, why you will not see it. The oligarchy does not want to have tens of thousand of kids in front of the White House raising havoc. And a privatized military is good for business. As I said to you in a PM both sides got similar lessons from Vietnam. The people who marched against it, will never allow it again in their watch. The oligarchy does not want it, because they know it is bad for social cohesion. The oligarchy also likes cheap labor abroad since it depresses wages here and destroys a middle class that has the time to fight them."
Agreed, but the people here at DU seem to totally refuse to see this, because I feel they feel no one should have to have any responsibility, and compulsory service is always bad. In reality I'd argue it's the moral and ethical thing to do...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as to sources for the Holocaust
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-response-to-the-holocaust
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/08/worlds_reaction.asp
A little more scholarly treatments
http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/us-response.shtml
If you start reading more history, you become more aware that things are not clear
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And thanks for the links! Rather disturbing though...
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Bullshit. Plenty of DUers have a lot of responsibilities, and embrace them.
Your whole attitude is very right-wingy. 
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)A. The RW "personal responsibility" canard is well-known
2. Impugning liberals as thinking people shouldn't have to have responsibilities is a RW position (e.g., lazy liberals, dirty hippies, etc).
...oh, and I won't be kicking this shit-stirring thread again.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)1. So personal responsibility as a concept is right wing? Furthermore, I'm talking about collective responsibility, which needs to be instilled as well.
2. Wat?
Don't respond if you don't feel like it, but I don't get what your objections are.
pnwmom
(110,251 posts)by voting in every election.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Jgarrick
(521 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Jgarrick
(521 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)no more opportunities for anyone to steal votes, repress voting, prevent people from voting.
Think about it.
The difference is, that the Australian people have a level of influence in their government that we can only envy. Their government works for them.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't think there's anything particularly unique about service to ones society that it should require a gun.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If you want to promote a greater sense of community, funding expansion of programs like VISTA and other community service initiatives would go a long way towards meeting that goal. Belonging to, and feeling responsible for, community begins long before age 18. Service learning programs integrated into elementary and secondary education are one effective way. Encouraging youth and adult involvement in service organizations is another.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Most countries with mandatory military service have smaller military budgets,
but I agree that service needn't only be military. I'd copy what Germany has with some modifications.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ironically, because of Pootie, some want to bring it back and turn the military into something more than a self-defense entity:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/29/germ-m29.html
There aren't a lot of democratic countries left with "mandatory/compulsory military service" anymore--the authoritarian regimes have the lion's share in the conscription sweepstakes.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1887
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Austria still does the same thing and its citizens voted to maintain it. I guess they're an evil authoritarian country. No wait, their mandatory service actually strengthens their society and democracy.
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/
MADem
(135,425 posts)An article that was written less than a month after Nahn Wun Wun changed ever-thang? When the drums of war--any war at all-- were beating at their loudest?
Good grief.
The "some" that want to bring it back are to the right of Attila the Hun. Nothing like a Lords and Serfs mentality to prop up the privileged world of the One Percent, after all!
Here's how the author of that...screed...describes herself:
Since you are apparently young, I'll assume you didn't bother to 'check your source' before throwing that mess up on a Democratic board. It's a good lesson for you though--just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's any good.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And a stopped clock is still right twice a day
MADem
(135,425 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14742-the-draft-a-war-killer
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/11/veterans_day_2013_technology_demands_we_bring_back_the_draft.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/rangel-military-draft/
Total right wing loonies...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)" The "some" that want to bring it back are to the right of Attila the Hun. Nothing like a Lords and Serfs mentality to prop up the privileged world of the One Percent, after all! "
It's Democrats in Congress who want it back and largely liberal and left wing sources calling for it to come back. So you're full of it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)then you cry and get shirty when that is pointed out?
What do you think a "neocon" is? A misunderstood liberal?
And you're going to have to prove this statement:
So, "link, please." Put up, or cease to shop rightwing themes here.
If you are really going to join the military, and that's not just some tale you're shopping, I can tell you, you're going to find it a very interesting experience.
Have you even read the ToS here, BTW? Telling people they are "full of it" is rude and uncivil. I suggest you give this link your full attention in order to stay out of trouble: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I'm tired of spoon feeding you this: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4845378
I'm done pointing out the obvious to you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I haven't told you that you are full of it, I have told you that your sources, quite frankly, suck. You have made errors of fact in your assertions about "draft" countries, and you are using neocon citations to back up your arguments.
I am the one "pointing out the obvious" here--and the obvious is that you do not have your facts in order and you are using wingnut sources on a Democratic message board.
The Thom Hartmann source you proudly cite simply suggests that the draft makes wars SHORTER--not that it makes them disappear. Gee, that's a selling point (not). As for Thom, himself, he works for Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine, Russia Today, so that doesn't make him a terribly reliable source to my view. Anyone who will take money from an unrepentant dictator will say pretty much anything. Further, for someone banging the drum and screaming for a draft, Thom Hartmann was a member of the SDS and protested against our last "draft" war, the Vietnam conflict (you can look all that up on wikipedia if you'd like). He didn't SERVE, either. So...so much for THAT source!
Your Slate article author, who did serve, relies on his Vietnam experience to the exclusion of modern-day realities. Three out of four people who present themselves to sign up for the All Volunteer Force (AVF) are ... Not Qualified. They can't pass the ASVAB test, or they can't pass the physical. They are morbidly obese, or they have "allergies" or asthma or a history of orthopedic surgery/ies that make them incompatible with military service. And once in, it's a trick to STAY in--if these individuals don't pass their semi-annual PT test, they get the boot. That's going to happen more and more in a peacetime military. The standards are going up and, absent another war, they'll stay up. The military is about to get VERY competitive again, anyone who isn't in shape and at the top of their competitive game is going to be very miserable in uniform, indeed--and it will get worse in the outyears, not better.
As for Charlie Rangel, his "draft" movement was a response to the enthusiasm of the GOP for War Without End, Amen. It was IRONIC. It was designed to be a great big middle finger to the jerks who support wars but won't fight them. Go check the Congressional records, if you will (that would be THOMAS) to see where his proposal to bring back the draft went. Hint: Nowhere.
What you seem to think is "obvious," isn't. And I've tried to explain that to you, with links, even, though you refuse to take any of the points I've made that refute your assertions. And I haven't called you names, like you have me...so there's that as well.
TBF
(36,467 posts)and racked up 600+ posts that really say very little that is progressive ...
and now you have the nerve to attack a well-loved DU member who has been here 10 years w/nearly 100K posts?
Really?
And you've gotten decidedly more hostile along the way.
We aren't interested in your conscription plans for the young of this country and we aren't interested in any of your other right-wing nonsense.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Most countries in the world have much smaller military budgets. The key metric is personnel cost per enrollee. Currently only a small fraction of young Americans are enrolled in military service --since only about 12% of 18-24 year olds even show an interest in joining, the actual enrollment is probably well below 10 percent. That means that there would be an enormous increase in personnel costs if there were mandatory military service (or mandatory service of any sort for that matter.)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Then again I guess I have a more unique look at it and setting it up
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Thanks.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and for the U.S.
Israel, for example, has mandatory service and has a modern military so it would be interesting to see how they can do that on lower costs than the U.S.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If the U.S. converted to universal military service that investment in weapons wouldn't decrease -- if anything, it would increase modestly in order to provide basic tools to all service members. However, I specifically didn't ask about that because I know that there's no comparison with other countries when total costs per service member is calculated. I limited the question to direct personnel expenditures because it's a more comparable number.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why not just have a military largely geared toward defending ourselves?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and that would mean a drastic increase in the number of weapons needed for training and military readiness.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Also, I don't see how a simple increase in investment of small arms is good or bad.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Up thread I referred to a modest increase. I made no reference to increasing bombs, rockets, et cetera, even though from a realistic standpoint there would be more use of equipment like tanks,ships and planes with a larger force. One could argue that the current stock would still be sufficient for a peace time operations even as the number of personnel increased dramatically.
The same can't be said for small arms, thus there would likely be a modest increase in weapons costs (modest in terms of the current dollar amount spent for all weapons.) More weapons for training are an unavoidable additional cost, for example.
I don't budget for military operations but I've done many budgets for expanding workforces. Adding people costs more than just the cost of labor and benefits. It has implications for equipment, space allocation and other overhead and administrative costs.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I thought you meant smart bombs and predator drones and nuclear weapons and etc. I'm for getting rid of the MIC pretty much entirely (or I guess we'll need a small bit of it, I may some of these weapons do serve to defend us).
Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which I can't fully answer. All I can say is it probably wouldn't be a problem.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Gee. But since you struggled to understand the choice of words, let me explain something to you. In the U.S. armed forces calling small arms guns will elicit snickering. Google it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Beyond that, I don't even know what your point is? If you have one, do tell me. If not,
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If you are rude to me, I will ignore you and I won\'t see any response you make to me. Remember that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But if you want a constructive conversation, put away the rudeness.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)For much the same reasons as you cited in your OP. Service to our community in lieu of military as an option for those such as myself, who detest almost everything that the MIC touches.
Good OP, keep it up.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Glad to see some appreciate a good discussion here.
JI7
(93,525 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)JI7
(93,525 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)First some of the countries you mentioned don't even have mandatory national service. For example the vast majority of those called for Norway's service program are excused, the participation rate is only 13%. It's a voluntary program in practice. That's literally the first thing I looked at to spot check you, would you like me to see which other countries you're in error about?
Second, it doesn't really matter. The right of an adult to control their own labor and priorities is enshrined in our constitution. We fought a war over it. It was a big damn deal.
Third, your insistence that national service would reduce militarism only works if one is entirely unfamiliar with US history.
Fourth, your insistence that elites would be subject to national security only works if one is entirely unfamiliar with both US history and the current implementation of US policy.
In short, it's an ill-informed, painfully stupid idea which you have failed to support at all effectively.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)She has no idea what she is talking about,
It's all wishy washy fantasy.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"First some of the countries you mentioned don't even have mandatory national service. For example the vast majority of those called for Norway's service program are excused, the participation rate is only 13%. It's a voluntary program in practice. That's literally the first thing I looked at to spot check you, would you like me to see which other countries you're in error about? "
So the fact that one country doesn't regularly enforce it means it doesn't? So okay, what abut countries that do? Is the idea in principle slavery? Again, you're not debunking me, you're nitpicking and avoiding the answer.
"Second, it doesn't really matter. The right of an adult to control their own labor and priorities is enshrined in our constitution. We fought a war over it. It was a big damn deal. "
Yet the draft was always upheld as legal, so no.
"Third, your insistence that national service would reduce militarism only works if one is entirely unfamiliar with US history.
Fourth, your insistence that elites would be subject to national security only works if one is entirely unfamiliar with both US history and the current implementation of US policy.
In short, it's an ill-informed, painfully stupid idea which you have failed to support at all effectively."
I've already answered these so I don't feel the need to respond to your "ill-informed, painfully stupid" response.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)such a system favors people named Liz.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not enough time to learn much of anything, just enough time to be annoying.
http://livingingreece.gr/2007/03/19/mandatory-military-service-in-greece/
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Thanks for lying though
99Forever
(14,524 posts)But what precisely does service to the society that gives you the very things required to live and succeed equate with slavery? The programs, just like the military, would be compensated and not require a lifetime, more likely a couple to a few years to fulfill. So, again, precisely what does that have to do with slavery?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Also, don't these people realize they're calling a lot of democratic European countries practitioners of slavery then?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Saying that you're going to direct that labor toward great things doesn't make it something else.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Slavery is the complete and total OWNERSHIP of one human being by another. Period.
Your hyperbole is just plain ridiculous.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)In a free society labor should be voluntary, and there should be no litmus test to justify being a citizen. This would just be a system of the haves and the have nots. The rich children will all be doing clerical work while poor children will be sent off to war, work manual labor profiting some corporation or picking up the crap from the rich. And what about those who are unable to give their labor for this utopia society due to disability, can't read, convictions?
Oh your disabled, sorry you can't be a Citizen in our great utopia. Oh the education system failed you, well you can't be a Citizen either. Oh you made some bad choices while you were younger and did a little jail time well no Citizenship for you.
Sorry society is working just fine thank you very much, just because you and I got ours doesn't mean we need to steal from tomorrows children.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Libertarian hogwash. Take take take, never give a damn thing because FREEDUMB!
Just another excuse to be selfish.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And must be protected and coddled at all times!
dilby
(2,273 posts)I vote, I serve jury duty, I pay my taxes, I do community service so where am I taking more than I am giving? I paid just under $19,000 in taxes this year, yes I take public transit but at the cost of $1200 a year which more than covers the 15 miles a day I ride. Stop walking around on your high horse thinking no one else lives in this society but yourself.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)After all, you said it on the nets.
handmade34
(24,003 posts)Not! ...our society is about as dysfunctional as it gets...
...only 50+% of eligible voters go to the poll
...1 of every 31 people in the U.S. is in jail or on probation
...the U.S. ranks 17th in education
...15% (21%+ of children) of U.S. citizens live in poverty
...etc
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--how anyone can call this society "working just fine" !!?
They can't imagine a society that really works.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)nt
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)doesn't include compulsory servitude or service to the state.
It's one of the benefits of being a more or less "free" people.
Plus, some people might have other things they want to do that doesn't include being property of the US government.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... say you don't have the first clue as to that you speak of, around 58,000 of my generation gave their lives, a large portion of which were drafted into a war they didn't agree with or want to be in. So quite frankly, you are full of baloney.
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)you are full of baloney too.
eat a ****
99Forever
(14,524 posts)No guts, no glory.
Enjoy your visit.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)2 points.
demwing
(16,916 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)there's tons of work to be done that will never get paid for by any private concern.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What would you favor exactly?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)How is that? Most teenagers I know have no time to post on DU?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Response to AcertainLiz (Reply #93)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)It's called compulsory education. 13 school years of it. Perhaps 12% of a lifetime.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And then we're complete
madville
(7,847 posts)We all know the federal government is not going to drop the "drug free workplace" mantra anytime soon if ever.
All one would have to do is test positive for a prohibited substance and like magic, they're not allowed to serve the government.
I imagine people with criminal records would find it tough to serve the government as well.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I think a few years in jail if you don't do it would be okay.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Jesus I got sick from your idea of forcing people into slave labor but now you want chains too, next if the chains don't work you will want them to be publicly whipped.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)We banned that here, too bad those countries are not as enlightened maybe because they never saw the atrocities of slavery like we did.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So Austria and Finland are less enlightened, and you're really calling all compulsory activities slavery?
dilby
(2,273 posts)Just like forcing someone to have sex with you against their will is rape.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)They were called comfort women, you should research it sometime.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Hardly "enlightened" that attitude, if that's your argument. You'd be excused from participation.
Austria's obligation is six to nine months--hardly time enough to learn anything or contribute anything, but just long enough to be mustered onto a bureaucratic data-gathering roll.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But none of you have answered me if these countries are major practitioners of slavery?
MADem
(135,425 posts)population in Israel even ends up serving--there are exemptions up the ying yang.
You're going to have to fight your little slavery battle with someone else. My reasons for rejecting your hare-brained scheme are more immediate than questions of individual liberty and national contribution.
I think conscription is a shitty idea because it horribly expensive, it is stunningly inefficient, it produces resentment absent a national emergency, it cuts into union jobs (which is why you'll NEVER see it here in USA--those guys know how to lobby), it depresses wages, which have not been raised properly to keep pace with inflation and are at least twenty years behind the times as it is, it produces a bureaucracy that dispenses or withholds favors as well as has to administer this behemoth of a proposed system, and it's stupid in the extreme because it interrupts the educations of college - aged students and forces them to labor at activities that they might not want to do FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE PURPOSE--it's forced labor, even if it is compensated. It's these sorts of objections that are causing most European countries to rethink the whole concept.
It's just not a winner anymore, particularly when so many jobs have been automated. We just don't need as much "manpower" to go to war anymore. Drones, robots and automation have changed the face of warfare. We don't need "help" building roads or chopping down trees--there are people who are trained to do this kind of work who are happy to get cracking.
It's just a stinker of a concept.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I don't wish to "fight any battles" with someone who uses just ridiculous hyperbole whom I've made my case to already. What else do you want to talk about, since you think I'm obviously a waste of time.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)My goodness.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I just don't feel why someone should waste their time with me, since that's how they feel.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Perhaps you can contact an administrator if you are having a problem with a poster.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I do tire of having to repeat myself, but oh well...
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you have the brass to accuse someone who calls you on your blatant errors of fact, AND your use of neocon sources, a user of "ridiculous hyperbole?"
What you are doing here is starting to smell like performance art, at best. Or perhaps it's just youthful indiscretion. In any event, you're acquitting yourself very poorly, indeed.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Oh please...
MADem
(135,425 posts)Do try to follow along.
Oh please, indeed.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You're really not worth my time.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... to serve as the jailors for those that refuse. We got a twofer!
karadax
(284 posts)You can get a college education in exchange for 4 years of service. In today's uncertain times, entering the workforce and beginning the rest of your life debt free is a tremendous plus. I wish more people would take advantage of the bloated defense spending and turn it into something positive for society. More educated people, less missiles.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)My lawn ain't gonna mow itself.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Payment for education, tax breaks, etc.
The problem with trying to institute something mandatory like that in the US is that people are going to instantly think "draft" and its association with one of the most unpopular and worthless wars in American history. Switzerland and Finland don't have such a blight on their history.
If we were talking civics education or community service encouraged by paying for two or more years of college or tax breaks, then I could more than get behind that. Though that could just exacerbate inequality.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)I want no man beside me bitter and resentful, and not proud of what he is and is doing, combat is hard enough with a professional on your 6. I shudder to think of it with an undisciplned and unwilling partner in a foxhole.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Everything I've read says otherwise, but Im aware this is a common claim.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)...
I've SEEN dead conscripts stacked like cord-wood by a very small group of professional soldiers.
I am curious as to your reading selection.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)tritsofme
(19,879 posts)This guy is definitely peddling a minority opinion.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And so what if its a minority opinion? I only gave one link because I know you're not even going to read what you're given.
tritsofme
(19,879 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But Andrew Bacevich is also RW, but he makes a convincing argument for conscription as well.
I'd also be on board with this kind of system: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/
tritsofme
(19,879 posts)than arguing that conscripts make better soldiers volunteers.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And you have no response other than some attempt to poison the well.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This is at LEAST the third time I've caught you in a misstatement of fact.
Here-a "wiki" page for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Reed
I think you might want to take your own advice, and read what YOU are given.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But the fact is back in that day he was a military writer and graduated from West Point and served many years so I do take him more seriously than you on the matter, even if he's a right wing idiot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Someone who spends a few years in uniform is just that--someone who served a few years in uniform.
He hasn't written any books on military planning, policy or procedure. He's just a guy with a few stories and opinions. He is not an "authority" so you cannot appeal to him in an effort to make your case. And if you think it is appropriate to cite wingnut neocons, like you did with that SALON article you proudly coughed up, you need to understand that affiliating yourself with a crazy like Ann Marlowe is only going to harm your reputation even further.
You plainly haven't to manage to get through the ToS here--the wikis are easy reading, which is why I offer them. I wouldn't be surprised if your real estate hero created that wiki page himself. It does read in a coyly self serving way.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)All you do is poison the well. I'm ignoring you now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think you need to read that ToS.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)As your source, U.S.M.A, Airborne, Ranger, and LRRP... I also find his argument s lacking, he downs war volunteerism and is an example of it himself, absolutely basks in it (which I am also guilty of). His choice of war as a point of reference shows the contrast between the EFECTIVENESS of draftees versus all volunteer forces.
there will always be diferent views, I find it immoral to use conscripts in war, both to them, and to the proffesionals they get killed.
Now, I do agree we as a country should be obligated to help our citizens, and to do this in a public work domain, 4 years working for your country, as you are gaining your 4 year degree, completely voluntary.I would stand beside you and fight for that. But military service? No, because most people are not soldiers, nor should they ever have to fear being sent todo the jobs of one.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... era conscript army and the post - Viet Nam Westmoreland Modern Volunteer Army, I again will have to disagree.
As a platoon leader or company commander I would much prefer leading volunteers. I would also sleep a lot better. Once I made field grade it didn't really matter as much any more. I never had a battalion command, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't want conscripts in my command if I had a choice.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So to be fair, I guess it's more up in the air than anything else.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)And unlike the US, they have actually had to fight conventional wars on their own terrain in the past century. Their mandatory service isn't about building a sense of community, it's an absolute necessity for their defense.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)with a much smaller air force, army, navy, etc. In this case, we could have a much smaller offensive military but still have an adequate defense because everyone, or most everyone, would get trained in the Guard, kind of like Switzerland. In this context, conscription would work fine.
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)KERSPLAT..
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Has DU gone mad to endure this BULLSHIT.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and 'can't make it for some reason'. Who gets to be the judge of who is 'truly' an objector? I see a person in thread saying he supports conscription but would not do military because he 'hates the MIC'. Is that enough to be 'truly' an objector? Just saying 'I don't like it'? Or does that guy go to the army?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You have to write up a serious essay and prove to a board you're a CO, or be apart of a religious organization that truly believes in CO status (like the Jehovah Witnesses). Otherwise, if you really don't have a moral reason to not be in the military, you have to go in. It's only fair that way.
Serious medical conditions I'd exempt as well. I'd only give limited college deferments as well.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)object to military service'. That person would be compelled to do military service.
Your emphasis on military service as the only form of service is insulting to those of us with skills beyond violence and obedience.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I never said it should just be military service, clearly in what you're responding to. Clearly if someone truly hates the military, they can demonstrate that they're a true CO. You should pay attention more. I'd also allow people to leave the military service if it was proven that it was driving them to extreme emotional and physical distress.
I've also made it clear other systems I'd be for, I'm just stating my preferred one.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)so you need to pay attention. The only people who would do military service by choice do so now, all of the rest would make another choice, or claim your instant CO status. During Vietnam many who hated the war were forced to fight it.
Your compatriot up thread said he favors conscription for others, but he'd object on the basis that he hates the Military Industrial Complex, although he thinks others should be forced to serve it.
Clearly not liking the military has never prevented a young man from being drafted.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I clearly said I'd adopt Germany's approach when they had conscription toward CO's, which you can read about on Google since I've already described it in detail. Have fun.
polly7
(20,582 posts)rates in countries that already do this, in terms of civil service. Would employers today take advantage of having the help of these people and tend not to hire so much from the unemployment pool? I know when I was in high school and candy-striping, I saved the nurses a ton of work, as did we all - probably it didn't matter back then, but I have to wonder how much impact it would make now ... maybe none of any consequence?
That said, I don't believe in it - if people are going to be sent somewhere to possibly kill and die, it shouldn't be someone else's choice to make.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I think it's immoral to only let volunteers fight wars.
polly7
(20,582 posts)were they not doing civil service, but I guess my question still stands regarding employers taking advantage of their service to justify hiring fewer numbers that they would be paying, and how that would affect things. Just curious.
And ... I still disagree.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And we'll have to agree to disagree.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I questioned the economical effects of it.
Every youth should volunteer at something, and imo, most who are able already do, so we don't disagree there. It's the forced killing and dying aspect we don't see eye to eye on.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And we should all have to participate in them.
polly7
(20,582 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)No human being should be forced to kill or be killed in a war they don't believe in. As 'most' wars now are waged to benefit the corporate elite and their war machine, it makes it all the more horrible to think they should be forced into it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I guess the draft in WW2 was bad...
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What is God's name do you want all this cannon fodder for in the current state of technology? You only need boots of that magnitude to occupy and hold.
What crazy neocon antics are dancing around in your head?
I know you keep saying it wouldn't have to be ALL military but it is clear that is the thrust for you and that espoused flexibility is more a hook to catch some agreement.
Your actual wiggle room really seems to be for conscientious objectors with a strongly supported background, preferably sanctioned by an institution of some sort, a very small minority.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm not seeking canon fodder, I'm seeking to both have mandatory service and to equalize service, part. the military.
As for technology: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/11/veterans_day_2013_technology_demands_we_bring_back_the_draft.html
And its the neocons most against conscription. Its liberal progressives who are speaking in favor of it.
brewens
(15,359 posts)My idea was that if we were going to get rid of all the illegal aliens, we needed to still get the crops in of course. So ANYONE that was able bodied and not working, would be drafted and their ass would be on a bus headed for the fields to pick! When I say anyone, that's what I mean. Even rich college kids, trust fund kids or whoever. Hell, it might be best to put them at the top of the list. Once we had all we needed, poor inner city kids would catch a break and not have to go.
We raised cucumbers when I was a kid. I picked miles of them as well as humping irrigation pipe on other peoples fields. Like the farm boys that were out haying that time of year, I'd show up for the first day of football practice, already in prime condition. Of course my experience was a joke compared to migrant workers. I really didn't have to do all that. I probably could have gotten away with doing a lot less if I didn't mind having less spending money. It was just a summer job.
Just like drafting rich kids first for the military, you'd see a real quick attitude adjustment on some policies.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What was the guys response, if he gave one?
And agreed, part of the reason I'm for mandatory service.
brewens
(15,359 posts)That kind of thing if I remember right.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)The military has enough problems dealing with the ‘problem children’ who volunteered adding those who do not want to be in the military to the mix will only create more problems.
So much could be accomplished too! Just look what the CCC did. People could build and refurbish homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, parks, play grounds, etc…
Have the service period flexible too, break up the service over a period of years, mulit generational people all helping in different ways. Do some service right out of HS and do some later in life. Even let people do weekend service if they want.
Think about it, an older person with successful small business experience could mentor and assist new or existing business owners in neighborhoods that have been rebuilt. Engineers and Scientists could teach in the public schools. The adrenaline junkies would volunteer to fight forest fires, they may not want to jump out of a plane with a gun but jump out of a plane to fight forest fires is a more appealing option.
The single biggest thing people would learn from this, life is not always about just you.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Though I still think some sort of universal military service would have a lot of benefits.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Your value, worth and the way you will be treated is directly proportional to the amount of money the Government spends on your training.
In other words....
If you are getting technical training that lasts a year or longer you will be treated pretty good.
If you only have a few months or weeks of training you will be treated like shit.
So what service and what are you going to do?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm going to go into a technical role.
Thanks for the advice!
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)and it can also be a really cool and fun time in your life if you take advantage of the things like cheap or free MAC flights and hops, you Can travel just about anywhere in the world.
As for your original question about the mandatory military service, we can discuss after you been in a few years, then you will really understand why it is a very bad idea.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But you're right, I may hate it but even then I'd be for mandatory military service. Its benefits outweigh its negatives.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)For me it was a job I loved to hate. See I was highly trained and coveted by the military; they wanted me to stay in for a third enlistment even offed me lots of money to stay in too but I got married in the later part of my service and did not want to put my wife through the separation and stress. When I was deployed there was no contact between me and the outside world for months at a time, she would have not known if I was dead or alive and if I never came home it was highly likely she would never find out what had happen or why. Beside I made more money as a civilian then when I was in and face it no matter what one chooses to do in life one has to get PAID for it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think many more should have to go through such things for a few years honestly.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Simple answer there is no middle ground.
The military is not a game you are going to have people you know die and or permanently physically and or psychologically injured, some may die in front you some just won't be around any more. You may very well be the one who dies or is injured. But one thing I can damn sure guarantee you, you are going to have people you serve with die.
Peacetime or war time, stateside or overseas people die in the military everyday even during training, many times in violent ways.
I wish you and your BF good luck, you are going to need it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)The complex answer is it depends on what we're fighting for.
"Peacetime or war time, stateside or overseas people die in the military everyday even during training, many times in violent ways. "
Elaborate?
Thanks for your response.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)or the country is fighting for, it is what you just signed up for. If the military felt like it they could hand you a weapon and put you on the front line to shoot people or make you charge a position under fire. In certain jobs if you do not carry out your duty or refuse to do so, someone could put a bullet in your head.
Welcome to the US Military.
In training with weapons one person screws up and shoots someone, weapon malfunctions and injures someone, doing pt, name the sports injury people get them, getting a ride in an aircraft it crashes, heavy and large machinery is used daily along with all the accidents and injury and deaths that go with it, people fall off ships, get sucked into jet intakes, one can get electrocuted, people even die in DUIs… I could go on and on, ask any vet, we all know people who died while on active duty.
If you are having second thoughts you best really understand what you are really getting into before signing those final papers.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But there's also a thing called AWOL and I'll go AWOL if I have to, I have principles.
People die in a lot of professions, so what?
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)don't go in and waste OUR tax dollars.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If you're the kind of person who whines about paying taxes to the military, then I don't know what to tell you :/
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Other people are going to have to pick up your slack because you decided you did not want to play any more. Your going AWOL could also result in others dying because you were not there to do the job you agreed to do.
The wasted tax dollars is secondary
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You clearly haven't thought this through, or understood what I was saying, which isn't even going to happen to begin with, it's just a hypothetical...
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)and by extension, no business advocating that everyone else join the military as well. By historical standards, our military is pretty scrupulous about avoiding collateral damage. But pretty much every week of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars had at least one fresh tragedy of somebody being hurt or killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. War is a messy and chaotic affair, and if you would rather go AWOL than risk killing any civilians, than save yourself and others a lot of grief and find another line of work.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Especially in the face of the fact that the military is forbidden to attack civilians, like duh...
"Collateral damage" is not the same as deliberately attacking civilians also.
But do back up what you say, if you can.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)You are going into the military because that is your choice.
Why do you want to take the right to choose away from others?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not that people should have to stay in it and make a career, no.
But I prefer mandatory service, both civil/military. The military would be part volunteer, part conscript more or less.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)
handmade34
(24,003 posts)a very valuable lesson
handmade34
(24,003 posts)
I have advocated this for years... Americorps, PeaceCorp, Military, Vista, work with Non-Profit environmental groups, work in inner city to help with housing, education, etc are all excellent ways to do service... and this is way to pay for education... many good ideas
Bravo to you!!!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why are you personally for such a system?
handmade34
(24,003 posts)Service creates a citizenry with a vested interest in their Community, State, Country...
I believe not requiring service does a great disservice to our citizens and the well being of our Country
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Strange to see so many here call me a fascist for saying it.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'd also be fine with rich kids having to serve alongside poor kids.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Live a little and see what you "think".
alarimer
(17,146 posts)Sorry. That's not what freedom and citizenship is about. Not forced service of ANY kind.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Taxation is justified, society makes it possible for you to earn your income so you need to give back. You are given a stipen compensation for Jury duty and you can exclude yourself from it if it would create financial hardship. Community service is voluntary or used as a form of punishment when you have wronged society.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't see how this wouldn't work as an argument for National Service...
" You are given a stipen compensation for Jury duty and you can exclude yourself from it if it would create financial hardship. "
So in other words its okay if some can get exemptions based on certain circumstances. Okay...
"Community service is voluntary or used as a form of punishment when you have wronged society."
Or necessary for high school graduation at my district...
You haven't convinced me of your stance.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)no I don't think we should be taxed until corporations and the rich carry their load. Jury duty and community service? Nope...who wants service or to be judged guilty or innocent by someone who doesn't want to be there? Not me.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Conscription in the Vietnam war didn't bring an end to the war, it just brought an end to conscription. Americans had two opportunities to elect a President to end the war - 1968 and 1972. Instead, they elected Nixon both times. Nixon escalated the Vietnam War while reducing the use of conscripted American forces in order to appease the masses. Had it not been for Watergate, Nixon would've almost certainly sent troops back in to prop up Saigon after the peace failed. Ford tried but wasn't able to, because the administration's position was so weak.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And Watergate ended Nixon, not Vietnam. It was the body bags that ended Vietnam.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Where did you read that?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)He ran on a generally anti Vietnam war platform, even ran against the draft.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Apparently your high school text books are not high quality.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I was going to point that out
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)he was anything but ---you claim it proves your point.
What exactly are you doing here?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And you've proven my point on drafts and wars.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Let's see your source.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)'end the war and win the peace' implied victory. Try again.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Which it clearly states in the paper. So try again?
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)End of story. You only know a couple sentences of something you dug up.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And refute that he initially ran on a platform to negotiate our way out of the war and to end the draft. If you may be so inclined.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Honorable peace=victory
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Even I wouldn't have been for a total withdrawal immediately..
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Anti -war protestors at the time wanted immediate withdrawal. That's anti war. I don't believe you are 19 either.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)with you anymore. Bye.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)You would do well to listen to others and learn. That's all I've got.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But if you have anything else to offer, I'm all ears, or eyes?
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... With someone who didn't volunteer to be there.
Whenever this comes up it has a distinct hint of intentionally lowering the quality and ability of the military by forcing us to carry dead weight.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Conscripted militaries aren't under performing, even in the face of imminent threat. I'd also be personally fine with serving with conscripts, I'm not judgmental.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Sincerely, someone who has wasted around 600 days in mandatory military service and got shit for it. Some giggles too, but they weren't worth it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What are you getting at?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It's clear what I'm getting at: Mandatory service is a waste of time. Necessarily so. I would know, as I've wasted 600+ days in it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You should go into detail so I know what you mean.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)clear enough?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'd be very interested to read this. Don't be so vague, then maybe you'd have some credence to your statement.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I don't care about how much credence you give to anything.
I already gave you all the details you need: It was a complete waste of time. As most mandatory service, especially military. It's downright impossible to alocate such activity sensibly.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If you don't tell me these, I won't take you seriously. You're just shooting off hot air then. Why should I care what your perspective is then?
If you're not going to contribute constructively to the conversation, why are you bothering to post?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It does not matter which country as we're talking about a quite generic subject.
I already told you why it was a waste of time. Mandatory service comes down to 90% waiting and standing around and 10% meaningful duty. That's because it's almost impossible to allocate a standing service pool to useful tasks- be it because of timing, logistics or lack of training.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I can't take you seriously. Since you can't cite any sources that contradict mine, all I can say is "that's just your opinion" I guess?
Thanks for the response though
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And you know how I came by this information, as I've told you three times already: By personally completing 600+ days of mandatory military service.
And the allocation problem of a standing service pool is just common sense. Google any army forum of countries that have mandatory service and you'll see it.
This is like the third time that I've repeated all of this. Can I ask some questions of you now? Have ever been to a turkish prison?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)This is the internet after all, where anyone can say anything. I mean you could be telling the truth, or you could be lying. All you've given me "it's a waste of time" without anything to back that up.
I'll stand by what I've cited. Thanks for your input though
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And what exactly are you asking of me? Would you like some pics in uniform? Or would a copy of my record suffice? Or would you like me to out myself as an Oberlüütnant? Or maybe I could prove it to you by citing the specifics of how to direct a TOW to it's target? What would you prefer?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)No thank you, I could not think of a policy more destructive to Esprit De Corps, Unit cohesion and military morale than to make the service mandatory rather than voluntary.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And has benefits like preventing wars and making the military more equitable.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)of draftees and are also a free society?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Look at Europe
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)NATO has 28 members, 24 have Volunteer militaries.
As for the rest of the world, this graphic should help you out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg
So NO many military's are not free and made up of draftees, a few are, but most are not from countries that rank high on the freedom index.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)No I didn't say Europe as a single polity, but that should be obvious. So guess again?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)You said look at Europe. Europe has very few conscripted military's and they are mostly small with the exception of Greece, Turkey and Russia.....all countries known for not being exactly free. So yes guess again. Your game has been very entertaining these last few weeks. Looking at this map show me the MANY countries that use conscription and are free. I dare you.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Europe is just one. Also Asia, Latin America, etc. You have a map, look at it.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts)English: Map that shows which Countries have conscription. Green: Countries that don't have any armed service. Blue: Countries that don't have conscription. Orange: Countries that plan to abolish conscription within 3 years. Red: Countries that have an enforced conscription.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)with a trooper from the Tzayeret Maatkal? (Those special forces troopers actually compete to get into the special forces starting in HS, because to be that is the highest level of service in the IDF) How the German Landswher?
Did I mention Norway? Then there is France, and to a point Belgium. I could point to others but.
Hell, even your neighbors to the south have a military service, though I will grant you that draftees do far more public service and close order drill, and rarely, if ever, touch an actual weapon, but they also have a mandatory one year of social service when people finish college before they are given their degrees. (There are problems with the implementation of that, but the point is they have it. There is less anomie as well, somehow I think it is related, but I could be wrong.)
There are other countries outside of Europe that have a strong tradition of military service as part of their path to citizenship. And they are not that bad, and by the way I do not consider the US to be that great. It used to be a much more freer nation, but in case you have missed it, god are we losing our place in that sense. Check what journalist organizations have to say about freedom in the US for example, and how that continues to go down.
I will not give you either Greece or Turkey since they see draftees lower than dirt, and in fact Judges still play the game of prison or army. So generally speaking first termers and lower enlisted really are abused.
Don't worry about a draft though, two groups in this country do not want it, and it matters little if the American people agreed with it or not (they don't, they prefer the poverty draft we have in place though) That be the military brass and the oligarchy. So this is purely navel gazing, but you know what? You are way off on this one. The brass has this myth that draftees are not good soldiers, when all data from wars like WW II and Korea and even Nam points out to draftees being very good soldiers. They were just not career. And that... was something that the professional brass ring knocker type hated. These people had no careers to protect and at times spilled the beans when the military misbehaved. (As all militaries do from time to time). Career troopers are less likely to talk.
Now if you want to offer African militaries, you have a point. NK, absolutely. And Russia, they are actually in a conversion to an all volunteer force. They are also in the middle of a wonderful imperial design, but hell, what can I say?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703678404575636412726670020
No, the combat forces we are likely seeing do not have conscripts.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)discussion, but this bullshit brought me back. I am sure you will display your usual tactic when confronted with being wrong, you will weasel your way out of it claiming you meant something else. I don't know what is worse, your bullshit or the bullshit propagated by the OP of this thread who is far more than they claim.
The German Landwehr is ALL VOLUNTARY On 15 November 2010, the German government voted in favour of suspending universal conscription with the aim of establishing a professional army by 1 July 2011. The last conscripts were drafted on 1 January 2011
Belgium's military is ALL VOLUNTARY Belgium suspended conscription on 31 December 1992 by amending the 1962 Law on Conscription, which became applicable only to conscripts drafted in 1993 and earlier. In practice this meant that the law no longer applied to those born in 1975 and later. Since 1 March 1995 the Belgian armed forces consist of professional volunteers only.
France's military is ALL VOLUNTARY France suspended peacetime military conscription in 1996, while those born before 1979 had to complete their service;[24] since the Algerian War (1954–62), conscripts had not been deployed abroad or in war zones, except those volunteering for such deployments.
The list of countries in Europe with conscripted military's
Austria 26,000 total personnel (12,000 conscripts) Mixed Volunteers/Conscripts Majority volunteers
Belarus 48,000 military personnel all conscripts
Denmark 24,000 total personnel 5200 Conscripts, 91% of all Danish Conscripts are volunteers Majority volunteers
Estonia 6,000 total personnel, 2700 Conscripts (Mix of volunteer and conscripts) Majority volunteers
Finland 36,000 personnel 24,000 Conscripts (Mix of volunteers and conscripts) Majority conscripted
Norway 26,000 personnel (9,000 conscripts) Mix of volunteers and conscripts, Majority volunteers
Switzerland 147,000 personnel (60,000 conscripts) Mix of volunteers and conscripts Majority Volunteers
Greece 177,000 personnel (40,000 conscripts) majority are volunteers
Moldova 6,000 all conscripts
Russia 770,000 personnel (480,000 conscripts) Majority of military conscripted
Turkey 471,000 personnel (325,000 conscripts) Majority of military conscripted
What do you fucking know......the countries committed to freedom and democracy with the exception of Finland have majority volunteer military's. What do you fucking know..........I await the forthcoming moving of the goalposts by both of you. You pathologically cannot admit you were wrong. So here I wait.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I did not realize Israel was a dictatorship.
Look, you are not the only one who knows this stuff or cares about this.
Reality is that freedom has zero, butkus, none, nada, nyet, lo, to do with military service. NONE. That is a false dichotomy drilled into professional troops in the US military. That said, Draftees have performed brilliantly over the history of the force. Moreover, we have had a volunteer force (poverty, immigrant draft mostly) throughout the history of the US Military.
It has zero to do with being better or worst, it is simply ideology.
By the way, I love your personal insults. I just love them.
The OP is coming from a POV of a family with an actual military tradition in the family, I am coning at it from actual experience serving.
Suffice it to say, it ain't gonna happen, and Rome continues to come to mind, as well as Praetorian guards.
Oh and I do love how you ignored OTHER forms of service as well. I guess other countries, including the ones you listed, are not free, since they do have a standard of service.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)The OP claimed many countries in Europe have military conscription, that is not true. If you want to talk about Asia or Africa, start a subthread. Don't shit in mine.
And i nailed it, you moved the goalposts and did that crap you always do. Never wrong in your own mind.......
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I did not move goal posts my dear. You keep moving them though.
If you bothered reading my posts on this thread regarding service you would notice that I am not just including military service, nor equating service of any kind to slavery, fascism, or anything else. You on the other hand are, comparing it to non freedom, argle, bargle, gargle.
In some ways you are reflecting the views of the officer corp of the US military currently serving.
But I take your point. The IDF special forces are not good enough for you. Oh and Israel is a really not cool place to be, equal to North Korea I guess.
Have a good day Sir.
I think we get your point on many things.
Oh and do let US Veterans who were draftees that they were inferior soldiers, will ya?
The reasons for the brass and the Oligarchy not wanting draftees though have to do with a very unpopular war and issues of good order and discipline stateside during that war. They got a different lesson from it than the civilians who fought to get rid of it.
As I said, have an excellent day. You should probably go ahead and trash this, and put some of us on ignore before we give you a severe tummy ache.
For the record, service (not just military) would do this country some good, but I will not point out any more why.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)We are talking about Europe since the OP wanted to say Europe was the example. The OP does not want to answer the question and neither do you. You want to move the goalposts and never admit you were wrong. What I said in the other thread is just as true in this one. You are indeed what I said you are. I have no need to ignore the pathologically wrong, I never once said anyone was inferior, but the world thankfully has moved on to a place where most nations committed to freedom and democracy know that it is illogical to force your citizens to serve the state. I will be here a long, long time to correct things that need correcting. Have a nice day.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)i am sorry for that.
In case you have not figured this out, it IS a message board.
And you keep spouting that propaganda line about freedom and liberty and democracy argle, bargle, please do.
And yup, by your logic the US was worst than NK at one point and Israel is a full on dictatorship.
Go on and tell vets that were drafted that they were lousy soldiers.
But don't worry, you are spouting the line of bullshit that the oligarchy loves, thanks for that.
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...then reevaluate this idea to see if you still think it is a good one.
Also a bit of advice: Even if you are 100% certain you want to do 20 years, ALWAYS have a plan to get out. You may not have a choice in the future.
Good luck!
p.s. ....one other thing, avoid going out every weekend with your fellow enlistees when you hit the fleet. Set up an allotment to save some cash!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"p.s. ....one other thing, avoid going out every weekend with your fellow enlistees when you hit the fleet. Set up an allotment to save some cash! "
Why?
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...then propose this idea of mandatory two years in the military as it would give your argument more weight. You have no idea what you are getting into yet are trying to convince your fellow citizens that everyone should experience it.
As for my point of saving money, it ties into the whole not guaranteed to be able to do 20 years. The military built up during the wars, now needs to shed some weight. And they WILL shed numbers, no matter who they trample over. The military will watch out for the military, not individual servicemembers.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Not until you admit that you are wrong about Europe and conscription.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And point out how I was wrong.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)You moved the goalposts. Someday soon, people will figure it out about you. I am just biding my time.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)and you're just being rude so I'm ignoring you now.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)who refuses to admit they are wrong even with undeniable evidence presented to them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think some the arguments in favor of compulsory service are sound. Of course, there is also the downside, which is that people have to spend a year or two of their youth doing something they probably would rather not do. I'm not sure why it's so hard to simply say "I think the costs outweigh the benefits" as opposed to accusing you of advocating slavery and hating the constitution.
Having said that, I would be opposed. I think the costs outweigh the benefits. Also, I wouldn't want to do it -- selfish, I know. I just don't think the benefits in terms of equality and curbing needless wars would be great enough to make it worthwhile.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Even if we have disagreements, we can have an actual discussion on the issue without hyperbole and insults and emotional fits.
I know this idea isn't going to happen, I just put it out as something with possible benefits that outweigh its negatives I recognize. But it seems hard to even say that here.
" I just don't think the benefits in terms of equality and curbing needless wars would be great enough to make it worthwhile."
Why not if I may ask?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Part of it, like I said in my last post, is just selfishness. Well, not any more, since now I'm past that age anyway, but let's say hypothetically, it's 2002 and "god" comes down and tells me that I could avert the Iraq War by participating in two years of national service. Well, if it's really that stark, I guess I'd have to say yes, but I wouldn't be too happy about it. Because from a purely selfish point of view, the IWR didn't directly affect me very much, certainly not as much as having to spend two years doing something I didn't want to do.
The thing is, in reality, it's not that cut and dry. It sounds really callous to say "no, I wouldn't give two years of my life even if that meant saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives". The truth, though, is that the benefits aren't quite that obvious and direct.
There are also limits to how equal a conscription would really be. I, for example, wouldn't be on the front lines. Instead I would be assigned to something like the NSA. You'd still end up with the problem that wealthier, better connected, and better educated people would find ways to avoid having their own lives at risk.
Also, I don't think that two years in the NSA is the best way that I could serve my country. I think a much better idea is to raise taxes on people like me that make decent money, and use it to pay for roads and teachers and the safety net.
In the end, two years of every American's life is a lot. My subjective judgement is that if you add up all the potential benefits, it just doesn't add up to enough to match the value of two years of everyone's life.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You make some good points. I dont think a conscription system could ever be totally equal, nor can anything really. For example, it's just inevitable more males would be qualified for the military than woman, and there's always going to be sick people and people who just can't cut it, etc. And yeah, most couldnt be placed in the front lines in any case. But I think people should be able to get out of the military with civil service in some way, maybe having to do half military, half civil or just give a flat out choice between the two.
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/ This is perhaps more of what I'd like to see.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)No.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)you and I seem to agree on quite a lot.
JVS
(61,935 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And if citizens had to do service in some way, it would translate to benefits toward the citizens as well logically.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Extracting compulsory service from the public would further depress wages.
And when it comes to social services, Im fine with a pool of cheap labor.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Now imagine a massive reserve of compulsory labor. One wonders what kind of economic opportunities people will have if businesses can just petition the government to throw young people who have to work or face severe punishment at a problem. And guess, what, the rich will successfully petition for this.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And limit conscripted youth to social services, community services and the military/defense. I actually have a German friend who thinks its a bad idea they got rid of conscription, because social services now have to find another source of labor thats far more expensive and more limited.
The wealthy and elite hate conscription the most.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Having a massive reserve of free labor like that is going to push normal working people out and drive wages downwards. Germany and Austria are very different animals in this regard due to their extremely high levels of unionization and price-wage controls that are heavily regulated by the government. We have no such protections here and so this would be a disaster if it was implemented with the current system in place.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But these jobs should be an obligation and not solely subject to wage competition. But if you want to remain in the position you're conscripted in and make it a career, all the power to you.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)between Germany/Austria and the US as far as labor protections are concerned?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And besides, are you just saying we need more unionized labor? Yeah, I agree.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Yes I am aware but non-conscripted people work in the same industries the conscripts work out, except they are protected from being edged out by strong unions and the government acting as an intermediary between business and union to ensure compliance. We have no such protections here so you can expect social service fields to bleed off people and reduce wages as they now have a massive pool of people forced to work for them.
You may as well just be saying that compulsory service would be great in some alternative version of the United States that isn't an oligarchy. You would be correct, but it is a meaningless sentiment.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Done
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You have noticed how the left has been mercilessly ground into dust over decades, right? And that unionization in the United States is at an all time low, right? If it was as easy as just doing it we would have never had the right wing resurgence in the 80's.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You admit to already quitting and saying nothing can change or improve basically, so I'm not sure if I really should your insults or advice.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Saying "just change it" as if you can wave a magic wand and make fundamental structural changes on a whim is naive. This is not an insult, it simply is. Furthermore, it is a little dishonest to claim your opponent's critical stance is "giving up" as that is probably the least charitable interpretation outside of accusing me of treason.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm suggesting things aren't hopeless like you say, and not to give up, like you have.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)"So just have those protections. Done"
You said that upthread and it is a naive thing to say. That is you wanting to wave a magic wand and make structural changes without even the slightest description on getting there.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Come on, stop trying to tar me with stuff that doesn't apply to me. Enough people have done that to me already here.
However, I do think we could make society more fair and equitable, even if you think that's totally impossible.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Levels the playing field. Everyone, male and female, could do a year or two.
stone space
(6,498 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)could have a great time teaching for two years in community college programs designed for putting single mothers into jobs in IT or child development situations where they could support themselves and their children. I am not suggesting everyone go to war! I am suggesting that citizenship can include two years of service to country -- this can happen in many ways. You love your kids. How would you like to see them develop and give and contribute?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's one thing to object to people being drafted into wars, it's another to say "you can't have my daughters" if they're required to do some sort of civil or community service.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...in attracting applicants as instituting slavery?
Last I heard, there are quite a few folks out there who are unemployed and underemployed who would welcome a decent job at decent pay, and unless you believe that people are fundamentally lazy and that labor needs to be extracted from them by force, slavery is a solution in search of a problem.
But, of course we aren't really talking about that, are we?
We're talking about providing cannon fodder for war via conscription.
That's what this is all about.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)because the community college program has no incentive to pay them while there is free labour around.
I really enjoyed teaching ESL and adult literacy and was getting pretty good at it after five years of experience (i was pretty crap the first two) but I couldn't make a living off it in the states because of all the volunteer programs.
So you have job displacement and you have inexperienced people doing jobs not as well as the professionals they are displacing.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It seems most here equate my proposal to slavery, which I don't even know how to respond to...
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Two years of service to country should be part of being a citizen. Teach America is a choice as is the volunteer Army. If everyone is giving for two years, we meet each other and become more aware of 'other' and have a sense of participation. I do not know how it should all play out. I do know that today very few people consider contribution and giving as part of their focus in life. Very few people in Congress have ever gotten their hands dirty! We need the village concept to be reintroduced into our national thinking.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'd probably think this would be most acceptable to Americans: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/
stone space
(6,498 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)to think this is possible for everyone. Upon turning 18, some people are single parents. Some are the main caretaker for their parents. Some are the main caretakers - or the only responsible ones - for younger siblings.
Some have health problems. Some have issues aspergers or bipolar disorder, or clinical depression, or social anxiety, or various other things that random service organizations aren't equipped to handle.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I have friends who are single parents. I don't see how this would prevent some sort of mandatory service system, as if single parents of age don't exist in places like Norway and Israel and Austria? That'd be pretty easy to deal with for these teen parents, no?
Extraordinary health problems would be exempted obviously, but most could be found things to do, whether in the military or civil service, even if they have some sort of health issue.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:55 AM - Edit history (2)
if you can't immediately envision problems with daycare (arranging, transportation and cost) for a single parent. Your statement that it's "pretty easy to deal with" reveals a lot about your circumstances and assumptions. I'm guessing in your family, you had a support system of some sort, with other adults capable and willing to step in and take over your own responsibilities if you needed them to.
I don't think you understand the concept of "relative" privilege, if you think you haven't got any privilege based on being middle class.
I also notice you didn't address the issue of teens functioning as care givers.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Then we can stop pissing away trillions in failed experiments in hegemony and start actually improving the lives of people who live in the US.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)Leave the rest of us alone. My life is too valuable to waste it fighting for some oligarchs oil, money, or power.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And if you really don't want to join the military, I'd just stuff you into some civil service assignment.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Connect free (or greatly reduced) higher education to public service.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'd def. be for that.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)From my perspective, I live in South Korea. Military service is mandatory for all Korean males by a certain age (I'm not sure exactly). I teach university students and most of the male students "disappear" after their second year to do their military service. The female students have no such requirement. So while the males are doing their 21 months of service, the female student are juniors or seniors and getting ready to graduate. The students in each major become a pretty close knit group when they first start university. It's a shame they have to do it. They also have alternative service for those who either are a CO or have something that prevents them from serving. One of my former students had a problem with his ear and instead of military service he did more like community service at the local government office (though he had to serve longer then those in the military).
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And pretty much not give out much deferments, so everyone would have to go a few years before really committing to college. Either that or if you choose to go to college first, you have to go back as an officer.
I think it would have more benefits than negatives.
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)in North Korea.
Keep 'em flying!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's also in South Korea (only for males though). I'd prefer what Austria does, for both men and women though.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Absolutely not. If you want to delude yourself into thinking the rich and well connected will also serve go ahead but that will never will happen. So no.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)I just do not see that ever happening in the US.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But it should be done.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)so the rich can get richer.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(5,180 posts)He is not an expert.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(5,180 posts)Seems the consensus is that you're wrong. You should work a little harder than basing your opinions on the ramblings of a radio talk show host with limited credentials.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You should work a little harder than just saying "you're wrong". You're not very convincing. Lol
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Draftees accounted for 25% of the 3.4 million who served in Southeast Asia in that war, and 30.4% of combat deaths.
Make of that what you will.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)and what they would have been in hindsight, so it's kind of a ridiculous thing to muse over, if you ask me.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I see nothing in the Constitution that grants the government the right to force its citizens to do anything. I suggest that conscription even in wartime is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with broad powers to raise armies, navies, raise monies for their operations and define their organization, etc. But I still haven't seen anything that gives the federal government the power to impress its citizens.
I do agree that, assuming conscription is constitutional (and there is likely much case law where the SCOTUS has upheld its constitutionality), we should invoke it anytime we commit America's men and women in combat. If the sons and daughters of members of Congress, the President/Vice President and the Executive branch were conscripted to go to war, cooler heads would prevail when the war is a war of choice such as Iraq.
I also agree that we should encourage service. We should develop a culture of recognizing the value of service, military and otherwise. I wish employers saw military and other meaningful service such as the Peace Corps and domestic programs as valuable experience when hiring. I think that service should be rewarded in terms of support for education, etc.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If you have an argument against conscription, by all means present it, but saying the Constitution forbids it is just false.
JustAnotherGen
(38,015 posts)I read his threads often in the Veterans forum - though I rarely post. And I think - perhaps this concept would only expand the Military Industrial Complex.
We need to pull it in - not expand it. . .
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)JustAnotherGen
(38,015 posts)Seems to me like if the Koch's had someone in power to do their bidding . . .
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)After all, Nixon ended it to promote war. The youth back in the 1960s were wrong to oppose the draft, they should have demanded it be more equal, really they should have demanded just universal conscription.
But regardless, I'm talking of peacetime conscription to military/civil services. I just wouldn't make the military totally voluntary still. I guess I'd make it a more unique setup.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)" The youth back in the 1960s were wrong to oppose the draft, they should have demanded it be more equal, really they should have demanded just universal conscription. "
Again, Huh?
I was there ! I was a youth. I was almost drafted. You know nothing of what went on at that time. I am one of the 'they' of which you speak. What do you mean, we " should have demanded just universal conscription."
Who are you to tell us what we 'should have done?'
That was never going to happen and never will in this country. I, and others here, have told you-- the United States is an oligarchy. Do you understand what that means?
You just read stuff in your free time and think you know something. (Although, at least you are reading SOMETHING.) What would help you as a youngster, is to read- better yet, conjure up in your mind and think about - ideas that go counter to your own. Try to carry two opposing ideas at the same time. This is one sign of an adult.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to join the military.. well... let's just leave that one for now...But one of your problems is that you have an obsessive attachment to the military. Do you see that? Attachment is very difficult to see.
Maybe this will open something.
― Thích Nhất Hạnh, "Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha"
When you join the army, you will either start to question, or....you won't. I certainly hope you do.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So I think your generation was wrong, IMO. Don't lose your cool over it.
"That was never going to happen and never will in this country. I, and others here, have told you-- the United States is an oligarchy. Do you understand what that means? "
Things change.
"You just read stuff in your free time and think you know something. (Although, at least you are reading SOMETHING.) "
I assume you're insulting me here? But I don't really know how.
"What would help you as a youngster, is to read- better yet, conjure up in your mind and think about - ideas that go counter to your own. Try to carry two opposing ideas at the same time. This is one sign of an adult. "
Okay, shoot some ideas to me, in a concrete and calm fashion. No hyperbole please.
"There is nothing wrong with wanting to join the military.. well... let's just leave that one for now...But one of your problems is that you have an obsessive attachment to the military. Do you see that? Attachment is very difficult to see. "
So you have a problem with me joining the military? Why? I don't have a problem with you having your view and opinion, don't judge me for mine. I'm tired of people being nasty to me for having an opinion and calling me an evil fascist and etc.
"When you join the army, you will either start to question, or....you won't. I certainly hope you do. "
Start to question...what, the army? Okay, I hope so too
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
SamKnause
(14,876 posts)TBF
(36,467 posts)you have come up with a way to keep the proletariat off the streets (and away from Occupying for example) so that they are busy and don't cause problems for the very wealthy who own everything.
Oh, I forgot, you are only 19. Have you discussed this idea with friends your own age? How do they feel about conscription?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--which is the case with this country today.
The idea of service to the nation could be expanded beyond the military.
But it only works in a country where the people have a voice and the government is trusted to be working for them.
So it's maybe idealistic, but the idea does get you thinking about what a country could be. A place where people are not pitted against each other. A place where people have common ground and know how to pull together.
TBF
(36,467 posts)but "idealistic" is not one of them.
Perhaps mandatory community service as a gap year between high school and working or college - something like that I could be persuaded to accept. But not conscripted military service in a time where the gap between rich and poor is larger than ever and people are literally homeless and starving on the streets.
You may not like people "pitted against each other". I don't like it either. But the reality is that there are 85 people on this earth controlling most of the wealth and until we really deal with that all the band-aids in the world are not going to help. We workers did not ask for this war - it was declared on us. Why on earth should we conscript our young to fight and die on behalf of these oligarchs?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but it would fulfill the requirements of national service in the larger sense. If you don't choose military, there would be lots of other choices. National service would come to mean pull together as a whole, as a nation, and a way for the young to gain experience and direction. But no, it won't work in a country that is essentially an oligarchy where we are slaves to their whims, only in a true democracy.
No, I don't favor mandatory military service. I never said that. Don't mistake the infinite arenas of service as being synonymous with mandatory military service.
Military = always volunteer.
TBF
(36,467 posts)" I do think our military should be more based on conscription than total volunteer" so I was focused on that piece of it.
If we were in a better place in this country I could definitely see a year of service as something useful and also interesting for people. The jump from high school to work force is hard at 18 - at least those going to college have a buffer.
I have to admit it would be low on my list - there are so many other things I'd like to see first - including pulling back much of our military from overseas and putting them to work on infrastructure in this country.
Anything we do is going to have to involve an acceptance that the pendulum has swung too far and funds need to be re-apportioned (ie taxes on high income individuals, corporations, inheritance, capital gains). Cutting military and raising taxes would provide funds to make some transitions in this country.
On my wish list would be free community college for all - but maybe a way to do that would be 2 years of community service followed by 2 years of free community college for all who are interested.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)a concrete direction other than the military--options to the military--wouldn't that be positive?
I like that community service/free community college option. That's a really good idea. Really would help that awkward jump from HS to college or the military or working in any job. But right now, you're right, people have bigger battles to fight. And yet, there is potential over the long term for such an option to affect several important issues. So the point is still worth making.
Cutting military spending and raising taxes on the wealthy--yes absolutely. That could provide the funding for more positive programs.
Agree that the wording of this proposal is important--I certainly would not use the word "conscription"--even if the motive is to spread the risk of military service to all levels equally. (That is the usual rationale). I don't think conscription ever is a good idea.
But military as an option--along with other options of service--is even better.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)You become a slave for someone else's economic benefit, forced to kill people half-way across the world that you don't even know. We fought a civil war to end slavery.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Israel, e.g., is pretty much homogeneous.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I don't object to mandatory service to the community. I object to putting a rifle in someone's hand by force. That's a slave army.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But not if its service to the community..which doesn't make any sense, esp. being that's what I'm advocating...
chrisa
(4,524 posts)making community service necessary to graduate vs. forcing people to shoot other people with the threat of being shot themselves or thrown in jail if they don't comply? They're very different.
Forcing people to kill others is depraved. When it's done for profit, it's even more evil.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's involuntary labor, no? I'm just using your reasoning here.
Who said anything about forcing people to shoot anyone? :/
chrisa
(4,524 posts)In order to graduate High School, I had to do community service. This, I'm okay with. I do not agree people should be forced anywhere they don't want to go if they've done nothing wrong.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You're okay with forced community service in high school (and mandating high school I presume) but not forced community service for a few years for adults like in some other countries. I don't see any consistency here.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Nobody would have came and shot me or thrown me in jail it I didn't do community service. I just wouldn't have been able to graduate.
One leaves options while having the good option as the preferred option (nobody would want to miss graduation just because of not volunteering), while the other is an abuse of human rights.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Since being truant means you'll be arrested. Again, you're not at all being consistent.
jobendorfer
(513 posts)The usual argument is that well, Israel does this, and Switzerland does this.
Nobody stops to think that the total population of Switzerland is 8 million
and Israel is about the same size.
There are ~33 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 24.
If you require two years of military service from each person within that age range,
the size of the armed forces will swell to ~11 million active members.
This is just a bit smaller than the size of the armed forces in World War II,
far and away the largest conflict the U.S. has ever been involved in. You know,
where the Germany - Italy - Japan axis had seized control of half the world and
was gunning for the other half? Today our most signficant threat is an asymmetric
conflict with a middle eastern terror network that is just about half the size of
the Crips.
But back to your idea:
First, where is the funding to pay for:
- their pay
- their food and housing
- their equipment
- their training
Second, and this is really the most important question:
What do you think our government will do with a permanent armed force
of eleven million? Construct your answer assuming that at some point
Republican-minded people will be running the country again.
And stepping away from the objective questions, I find it the height of arrogance
when people assume have the correct answer as to how to transform everyone else
into some ill-defined and fuzzy ideal of the model citizen.
John
handmade34
(24,003 posts)not just military service; community service, national service looks like very many things... and I believe it is an excellent idea!
we all need to know we are in this thing together... many problems result from alienation and people not having a vested interest in the community, country, they live in...
no such thing as a model citizen but we really need an ideal of a healthy Country and what that looks like...
I come from a family of military men but did not serve in the military myself, nor have I encouraged any of my children to join the military... but they have all done community service in one form or another... there are MANY excellent ways to serve other than the armed forces...
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)Republican-minded people will be running the country again.
I don't think party affiliation has anything to do with the dangers of maintaining an armed forces of eleven million. (Remember Obama chomping at the bit to go into Syria just eight months ago?)
But required national service doesn't necessarily involve forced military service
. It also means doing things that most of the people proposing this policy wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Besides, all 18-24 year olds are totally in a position in life where they can "accept" a job that pays a weekly, monthly, annual salary of $0. Nothing like telling a poor/working/middle class 18 year old that they have to put their lives on hold for 2 years so they can go pick up dog shit in a park.AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Republicans or Democrats, a conscript military is harder to control and use for BS.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)service in to interrupt. imho
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I like it.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)Clock is ticking, don't you think? Walk to your talk through example.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Heidi
(58,846 posts)ya know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)students could graduate upon completion. Students should know which branch (including the Peace Corps and Coast Gaurd options) they would be best suited for. It should be more geared for civil service rather than war. The physical education aspect of it is especially appealing/interesting to me.
I am not opposed to this notion but, there would have to be a lot of details ironed out.
As it stands now, our students are graduating from High School ill equipped and ill prepared for employment in comparison to other industrial nations.
STEM courses need to be strongly encouraged for those that show the aptitude for those subjects.
Teachers need help and support not blame and criticism.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think in addition, everyone should have to go through some basic training/boot camp scenario and then on to their service.
"Before choosing the branch of national service they want, which will inevitably lead to some concentrations by race, gender, education, class and so on, everyone would complete a basic training period of a few months. This would include rigorous physical preparation, as in the armed forces, but without the elements of abuse and rote respect for authority characteristic of military discipline. We are training citizens, not conscripts, building spirits rather than breaking them. "
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/
Understandably we're just brainstorming, and I know these ideas will probably never happen, but how exactly would you structure it? Would it be a requirement or just something greatly pushed for with incentives, etc?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I think four - six weeks off twice a year would be better.
Say from the last week of June to the first week of August and again the last week of November to the first week of January.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Very interesting I'm sure kids would hate that suggestion though
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Thanksgiving to New Years though and would consider it a fair trade. Kids are adaptable and I am not so concerned about pleasing them as educating them. Meh. Or we can continue to raise spoiled brats who have nothing positive to offer society and remain the world's laughingstock. Whatever.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I do think some sort of service requirement after 18 for a few years would go along away into educating and making people less spoiled as well.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)If you're a doctor, a nurse, an engineer, a plumber, or an electrician, your skills are useful in helping a developing country. If you only have a liberal arts degree, they're not. Whatever you can do, somebody already living there can do. Sending millions of unskilled workers to developing nations is a waste of time, money, and hinders their development.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)be useful to society. A Foreign language of their choice should be mandatory and they should have some four year mastery of it by senior year.
CNA classes are already available to Junior and Seniors where I live.
Basically, what I am getting at is, our students should already be at Assoc. Degree level by the end of High School.
Our students are so far behind the rest of the industrial countries.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The developing world doesn't need tons of white kids coming over to help them. All that does is take away jobs from people there who are perfectly capable of doing them. They do need people with certain skill sets, but not the kind that you typically develop by the end of senior year of high school.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)they would not be eligible.
Air Force
Marines
Navy
Army
Coast Guard
Peace Corp
all should be options available but, if you read my posts above our education system should be restructured so that by completion of high school our children should actually have the equivalent of an Assoc. Degree ... much like most of the European school systems.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
ancianita
(43,286 posts)Service Learning. There is no boot camp or training, except individual training provided by the particular community participants who need the students' service help.
I think it's a good after school activity that can enhance a student's knowledge of his/her local adult community.
Here's more about it, including national organizations and networks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-learning
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Two-three years of community service would do high school grads some good I say.
ancianita
(43,286 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)ancianita
(43,286 posts)Community service has been going on in many, many states' high schools for over ten years.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I mean actual National Service like in many countries around the world. I'm not entirely allergic to mandatory military service either, in either of the Guards for example.
ancianita
(43,286 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)I think Israel does something like this. They consider themselves a democracy. There should be options for conscientious objectors. They could have medical training or infrastructure rebuilding like the WPA. I think it would help the kids of the 1% gain some empathy and the lower classes some advantage toward education and experience. I think it would be equaling.
I think it might break the trend of the cycle, of kindergarten to prison, pipeline.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I agree with you. How would you structure it if it were up to you, mandatory service I mean. I have my own ideas, though most call me a fascist here for expressing them.
"I think it might break the trend of the cycle, of kindergarten to prison, pipeline. "
Why do you say this? Just wondering what you mean exactly.
"I think it would help the kids of the 1% gain some empathy and the lower classes some advantage toward education and experience. I think it would be equaling. "
Again, why do you say this? Because when I suggested this, a lot said I was totally wrong here
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)this? Seriously?
I met a couple who left Israel over this crap.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ancianita
(43,286 posts)Response to AcertainLiz (Original post)
ForgoTheConsequence This message was self-deleted by its author.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but I STRONGLY disagree that military service should be the default.
It would have to apply to everyone, no exceptions, absent catastrophic disability.
One good outcome would be practical on the job training in all sorts of things -- construction, conservation, education, art, computers, social work, what have you.
Another good outcome would be a shared sense of "we're all in this together".
And yes, the military would be one of the choices offered. Then the military can go ahead and compete with everything else in terms of its ability to draw people into service. Surely with all the $$$ they have, they could compete. For example, they could still offer perks like paying for higher education, etc., if people enlist after the mandatory service period.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)How exactly would you model a mandatory service system, if it were up to you?
Thanks for the input.
BainsBane
(57,741 posts)Not necessarily military, but national. People should have the option to do non-military service, and the military needs to be able to reject those unfit to serve in a military. Many countries, including Israel, have such a requirement.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why do you think we need this though, and how would you structure such a system? Great to see at least some agree with me here.
BainsBane
(57,741 posts)But everyone would begin service within so many months of turning 18. I don't think the criteria for military training should apply to length of service because the fact is most people won't be fit enough to serve in the military. People could work for the National Park Service, the Peacecorps, AmeriCorps, programs like that. I think two years would be plenty of time. In addition to room, board, and a modest wage, everyone could receive a fund (credit) to apply toward college or vocational-technical training. There would be advantages for participants in that everyone would come out with a work history and some funds toward post-secondary education. I think it could help level the great inequality of opportunity that characterizes the situation faced by our nation's youth in jobs and education.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Sounds similar to this: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/05/natnl_service/
I could get on board with such an idea, but how would you deal with those who would inevitably try to get out of it? What kind of deferments would you allow? I do think some sort of National Service system is desperately needed in our society...
BainsBane
(57,741 posts)I'd have to look at penalties in other countries. I wouldn't like to see jail as a punishment.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)IMO. In some countries like Finland, they totally arrest people who refuse military or civil service.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
Made my day.
roll: :
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Too much fun reading the smack-down.
Now I'm late on my chores...ugh.
LoveIsNow
(356 posts)Everyone has the option to serve in the Americorps or Peace Corps instead, and they were funded in proportion to the number who volunteer. The last thing we need is to become Sparta.
However, I do think everyone should go through basic training and be eligible for the draft to safeguard against another Iraq.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm all for civil service for CO's
Why do you think we should all go through basic training? What kind of training do you mean? Boot camp?
Thanks for your response
LoveIsNow
(356 posts)Just so if you choose civilian service in peacetime, you still have some frame of reference if you do get drafted.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Don't want to go through months of being yelled at, having to follow orders, do weapons training, etc? Just curious.
I agree that some basic training should be required once one turns 18.
Warpy
(114,561 posts)and childbearing, itself, is about the most self sacrifice you can expect of anyone.
Men don't get pregnant so they will never admit this.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If only for learning how to iron a damn shirt.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Some show up to work looking like they slept in their outfit.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)That when you show up to work, don't look like you slept in your clothes. I find it unprofessional and tacky.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The unis are cammies, and they wash and dry like pyjamas. You're not to iron them, it will screw up the fire retardant aspect of them (like children's PJs).
The boots are suede--so there's no polishing.
The dress unis are a polyesther blend; the shirts will "iron" if you put them on a hangar either straight out of the wash or the dryer.
The shoes are shiny plastic "corfams" that can be cleaned with windex or furniture polish (or shaving cream, in a pinch).
It's a different world. An "iron" is something you use in the "dorms" (they aren't barracks anymore) to make a grilled cheese sandwich if you don't have a hot plate.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I spend at least an hour a week ironing my shirts and pants. "Easy Iron" on the tag of my shirts is a vicious lie.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But I did work with a civilian contractor, and I had access to the MCX. Those t-shirts do not wrinkle. Period.
I rolled one up in my motorcycle bag, and it sat at bottom for two days in 100+ degrees, and something like 4,000% humidity. I pulled it out, whipped it once and it was fine. It smelled like exhaust, but looked fine.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They are, for the most part, good quality, wearable and made to last. The services do a pretty good job of field testing new stuff. They've come up with a few clunkers down the years but they generally have more hits than misses!
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I don't buy a hiking boot, until I figure out what the latest is from the military.
I don't buy a backpacking pack, until I figure out what was tested and selected for the military.
I then buy the same. I've had the same pair of boots for about 4 years. I have over 600 miles in them and they are just getting broken in. I have a backpack that was built on the Marine Corpse's latest (at the time) and I swear it's the best back country equipment I own.
I've almost completed the AT, and the best equipment I own is built on military spec. The devil is in the details. Double-stitched seams, an extra pad, reinforced rivets for my laces, etc... I can't destroy the stuff if I tried.
The shame is, the military spends all the money of R&D, but the equipment comes from the lowest bidder. Sort of like the care they are stuck with after a deployment.
Nothing is too good for our military, and that's about what we give them.
lostincalifornia
(5,311 posts)
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)And it is a non-starter for conscientious objectors. Boot camp/basic training is military in nature, and conscientious objectors (generally) oppose not only war, but the preparation for war.
There are many young men who have forfeited scholarship aid (and other things tied to registration for the draft), because even registering violates their beliefs against participating in the military.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)is a non-starter.
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)in the military for reasons of conscience?
There are many bright young men of conscience who currently pay far more for college than their peers because they cannot register with selective service. Following their conscience costs them a considerable amount financially - and, if anyone wanted to push the matter - there are criminal penalties.
Requiring mandatory service which requires, as a prerequisite, military boot camp would force many more individuals into this position - or worse. Their conscience prohibits them from preparing for war - which includes preventing them from participating in a military boot camp. Those individuals would - as their predecessors did decades ago - refuse to participate, resulting in criminal convictions and, often, jail time. This country should not be in the business of forcing individuals whose have conscientious objections to war and killing to become criminals as the only option they have which they can live with.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Just because you don't want to pay taxes or contribute in anyway due to your beliefs is no excuse. The same is the case in countries with mandatory service, for the most part, and it should be like that here. The fact it's mostly missing from the US is a detriment, not a good thing.
I feel I should make a new post on this because it seems most here misunderstand what I'm saying and just jump to hyperbole.
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)In addition i am responding to the numerousl bills which have been introduced over the years. In case you have not paid attention to the attempts to introduce mandatory service, every single one has been premised on a military boot camp experience - something which conscientious objectors would, for the most part, be willing to go to jail to avoid because the military training is preparation for war and killing other people.
We fought that battle once before - with young men of conscience rotting in jail not because they weren't willing to do alternative service, but because their consciences would not permit them to participate in the military. Any mandatory service needs to have an entirely non-military alternative. It is bad enough that many young men are already forfeiting scholarships and other things which are tied to selective service registration because they cannot, in good conscience, participate in a registration the sole purpose of which is military readiness.
And - there are a number of people who are war tax resisters by one of two means: Either choosing to live in poverty in order to avoid paying taxes toward war (the legally recognized way of being a war tax resister), or by paying only the portion of their taxes which goes toward funding non-military items. Requiring military training as a component of mandatory service would impose an additional hardship on such individuals.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Is having to pay taxes discrimination for extremist libertarians, for example? Is having to go to school discrimination for kids who don't want to go? Where do we draw the line, I'm just curious? Because this seems like a very subjective argument.
According to the law, conscientious objection can't just be anyone who doesn't want to go, and that's fair. That doesn't mean everyone has to join the military.
My OP has been edited to more reflect what I mean, since I was vague in the beginning.
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)Conscientious objection has a long history in the country (and elsewhere).
Yet anytime anyone starts in on mandatory service, it always starts with the presumption that the service will be military - or at least will start with military training.
And each time a new military push begins, more young men (in the past) are denied access to scholarships and other government programs merely because the requirements to participate in the military machine exceed what their consciences will permit. It has nothing to do with being willing to serve - it has to do with the service (or registration for selective service) being tied to a premise that strikes at the core of who they are and what they believe.
On the federal level, most recently, it means denial of access to student financial aid, (Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study), Federal job training (The Workforce Investment Act (WIA)), Federal jobs. Denial of access to these things (all else being equal) is currently based on gender, age, and exercise of religious or other belief of conscience.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"Today, the two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector are that the objector must be opposed to war in any form, and the objection must be sincere. A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[86]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States
If you really oppose ALL war and oppose the very existence of the military, even if it's a legit war going on, you shouldn't have to serve. Other than that, you're just being selfish.
But I'm not even talking war, or even every single man and woman having to do military service. I mean in general "National Service".
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)For people who are conscientious objectors, training for war, registering for selective service, and so on is part of what is offensive.
And it has never been as simple as "If you really oppose ALL war . . . you shouldn't have to serve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
My own father, the first conscientious objector in his state, was thrown out of his family and church.
Stories like those above are why any erosion of the right to conscientious objection is completely unacceptable as a part of any proposal for mandatory service, and why many of us who have been through the process in our own families feel so strongly about it. No proposal I have been aware of (and is is many) since the draft was eliminated has not also included a mandatory military boot camp.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)What I have repeatedly said (in response to your suggestion of tying it to boot camp) was that tying it to the military in any way, shape, or form is a non-starter.
Doing civil service does not require boot camp.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)For CO's, basic training - weapons training. Easy. I think some sort of basic training should be a prereq. for citizenship though. There is benefits to it beyond weapons and combat training. In general, I think citizens should have basic training to prepare for when the nation may need to call on them (even with a, omg, draft...)
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)Basic training is war readiness, and is not consistent with conscientious objection.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)or in some cases even governments, I don't see this as a problem. I don't think people should get out of it by saying "I don't want to do it". If that's the case, we should just do the same with taxes and compulsory education, etc.
I think Germany had a better idea when they had conscription.
Ms. Toad
(38,543 posts)who had to forfeit scholarships (including Pell grants) to go to college because registering for the selective service violated their beliefs.
Or any others who have been directly impacted by any law which links participation in the military or preparation for war to civil service, or to the ability to work for the Federal government in any capacity, or to obtain college scholarships, or training programs through the federal government.
It is easy for you to say it is not a problem because it does not impact you.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But women should have to sign up as well. What's the problem with this? You don't think we should have a registry ready to use if necessary?
Besides, we should just train the population to prepare for war and disasters because they do indeed happen.
Demonaut
(10,067 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Demonaut
(10,067 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I think many here would know EXACTLY what you meant (and at whom it was aimed). 
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Civil service before voting would mean the those making the decisions had a stake in the situation.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Star Ship Troopers, You know why Heinlein did that in the background?
We do not have enough troops or vets to force that one.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Something like that?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that the military took over in a coup, and mandated service as requirement of citizenship. Good book, but bad premise.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)My boyfriend rented the film a year ago, we watched it together, it was just about cg-i bugs being shot at if I remember. I don't remember if it had any of those themes you bring up.
I think our current military is just asking for a coup though, if you ask me. Another reason I'd rather have some sort of conscription...
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)should be read for entertainment value, not political or philosophical guidance.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)he never pretended to be either a political leader or philosopher. I gotta give him credit for that, and Star Ship troopers is a damn good read.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)If you grew up rich, you help at food banks or clinics for the poor. If you grew up poor, you get to intern with Congressmen and corporations and movie producers. I actually think it would be good for the kids. I think the rich kids would learn a lot. The poor kids would learn a lot. Those in the middle get sent wherever seems most appropriate.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I like it a lot. We should make people trade places for a time, I think.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Any ideas when?
TBF
(36,467 posts)but that is gone too.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Apathy and my generation
Someone here asked me to make this post, so I'm giving it a shot:
I'm 19 and I only got the right to vote last year, but I've already begun getting involved more and more into politics. I plan to vote in every election, I'm reading everyday on politics and political theory, and I'm probably going to register Democrat pretty soon. My friends, my close friends that is, totally the opposite. Could care less about politics. My boyfriend for example says he has no plans to vote, and thinks I'm wasting my time because we'll never be listened to, and it's just window dressing. He's very apathetic on the whole process. All my friends basically agree. My boyfriend and I share a lot in common, we're even going into the military together, we've spent two years together, but he's totally apathetic on serious matters like politics while I'm totally engaged. I feel totally alone in my generation.
I guess I'm not really going anywhere specific with this other than everyone I know my age is cynical and apathetic, probably for both good and bad reasons, when it comes to politics. It seems only older people care, which is really sad.
TBF
(36,467 posts)I thought I had read that.
I have to take issue with the current teens being "apathetic". It was this generation who got off their butts and occupied. Granted it needs to get more organized, disciplined and militant - but that will come with experience.
This young generation has inherited a world of economic and environmental disaster and I think they know that. They are not rushing to enlist as our friend Liz here is swearing she's going to do - because they don't see the purpose in blowing up Russia (which our "Liz" and many others on this board have now decided is a key concern - and back to the 1950s we go!). No, as a generation they are learning technology and looking for work. They are less conservative than older generations on social issues as evidenced by their embrace of gay marriage & they have no problem w/women in power. They seem to be more libertarian when it comes to financial issues but I can only attribute that to 30 years of Reagan's trickle down and hope they can see that didn't work well for most of us.
MH1
(19,146 posts)I think that would make the military bigger than it should be. (I admit I haven't figured out the exact numbers, that's a gut feel.)
I would propose that military and other hazardous duty be paid more than some more "desirable" or less hazardous jobs. There are any number of jobs where relatively unskilled but physically able people could serve their country, without the risk or conscience issues of serving in the military. If enough military could not be recruited by reasonable incentives, then a lottery system could be used, with a conscientious objector process to allow some exclusions from the lottery.
In general, however, I agree that everyone should serve in some capacity for 2 years, between the age of 18 and say, 26 or so. That would allow some to attend college before performing their service, which might make them more valuable for services such as Peace Corps or Vista.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I should make a new post and demonstrate what I mean exactly, and then have people respond to that, I feel I've left it too vague so it's led to a lot of misunderstandings.
"I would propose that military and other hazardous duty be paid more than some more "desirable" or less hazardous jobs. There are any number of jobs where relatively unskilled but physically able people could serve their country, without the risk or conscience issues of serving in the military."
I think this could work, but if someone signs up for the military via their service requirement, I think they shouldn't be expected to do more than two years like anyone else.
"If enough military could not be recruited by reasonable incentives, then a lottery system could be used, with a conscientious objector process to allow some exclusions from the lottery."
How exactly would this work?
"In general, however, I agree that everyone should serve in some capacity for 2 years, between the age of 18 and say, 26 or so. That would allow some to attend college before performing their service, which might make them more valuable for services such as Peace Corps or Vista."
How would you structure college deferments, then?
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Your OP seems to be working from an unspoken premise that there is something uniquely valuable about military service, and it's a sentiment that I recognize as pretty common among those with military backgrounds and families. And of course, it's a sentiment that is continually reinforced by politicians and the media, especially during wartime. And of course there are plenty of admirable aspects of military service.
But a nation is ultimately a collection of people with a wide variety of needs, and a military is just a tool of foreign policy. To my mind, service to the nation comes in the form of schoolteachers that educate the next generation, scientists and engineers that add to our store of knowledge and use that knowledge to build useful technology and infrastructure, artists of both the fine and popular arts to broaden and perpetuate our culture. And humbler jobs too - our civilization would completely disintegrate inside of two weeks if all of the coal miners and sanitation workers suddenly disappeared. And yes, military people serve a valuable function too, but enshrining military duty as the highest civic virtue, isn't really the vision that lots of us have for the USA.
As a personal anecdote along these lines, I know a guy from France that is an absolutely brilliant Stanford-educated physicist who spent a couple years as a conscript on a military base in Germany, which was a WWII relic that by then (early 90s) served no purpose other than propping up the local economy. He didn't really mind, since he basically got to extend his adolescence a couple of years drinking beer and chasing girls, but it always seemed to me like a ridiculous waste of potential.
Not to mention all of the practical and ethical considerations upthread.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)
And it goes on from there.
You give some very valid points, and it's made me re-think my stance slightly, in fact I've edited my OP to reflect my modified stance, but either way, I don't see why most are claiming I'm some fascist or pro-slavery advocate, which is just ridiculous. I feel for the most part, I haven't been able to have a rational discussion on this topic here.
I don't think national service would halt the economy though, it hasn't in countries which do it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I do not just talk of military service. That should be an option, but not the only option. A kid serving three years iin the California Conservation Corp would work, Kids who finish college having to do a year of service in their fields before they are granted degrees would work. If people prefer to serve as EMTs for three years in rural areas (where they are needed) by all means.
The military is just one option
And all should receive some form of reward. let's say a GI bill for all, and if the service is as part of an apprenticeship program, a career
There are so many unmet needs and it would help get a sense of we, which imho is pretty much missing in action these days.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)
I edited my OP to more reflect my opinions on the subject. Actually discussing it here has changed my opinions somewhat.
I'm hoping I can have a more level-headed and less emotional discussion, because it seems most here think I'm some fascist authoritarian, when I feel I'm the opposite...
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)You stated your age here: http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024793703
The various branches of service all have recruiter directories on their websites.
Here's how to get directions if you can't find the office. They'll even figure out your bus routes if you don't drive: https://maps.google.com/
We're all waiting for your enlistment photo!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we are in favor of national service, though not just limited to the military. Any other questions? She is asking a valid question, and one that actually is not a bad one.
Don't worry though, you are on the same page on this one with two critical groups that determine policy, because that is not you.
1.- Military brass, they do not want to have a draft ever again. They remember Vietnam.
2.- The Oligarchy, a draft is really bad for business, and Halliburton suddenly would lose it's logistics and KP business.
No, the oligarchy is not opposed to it becuase garble, darble, their kids might have to find excuses, nope. They are excused to it becuase it is quite simply really bad for a privatized military. Oh and they do remember Vietnam as well, and those thousands of kids in the streets really give them tummy aches.
It has another benefit, these people are easier to keep divided, and we all know that this benefits them.
So don't worry, this is navel gazing. Short of a nuclear attack on the US, and total war, we ain't enacting a draft anytime soon.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't understand why she felt the need to try to troll me like that.
"Don't worry though, you are on the same page on this one with two critical groups that determine policy, because that is not you.
1.- Military brass, they do not want to have a draft ever again. They remember Vietnam.
2.- The Oligarchy, a draft is really bad for business, and Halliburton suddenly would lose it's logistics and KP business.
No, the oligarchy is not opposed to it becuase garble, darble, their kids might have to find excuses, nope. They are excused to it becuase it is quite simply really bad for a privatized military. Oh and they do remember Vietnam as well, and those thousands of kids in the streets really give them tummy aches.
It has another benefit, these people are easier to keep divided, and we all know that this benefits them.
So don't worry, this is navel gazing. Short of a nuclear attack on the US, and total war, we ain't enacting a draft anytime soon. "
Indeed, this is all true. I think it's also an example of how we've lost all form of cohesion and have went mad with individualism, IMO.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)because you disagree with someone's opinion really says something about your character (and maturity).
If you have anything constructive to add, or an actual contention with what I've said, I'd be happy to read it. Can we put away the childish insults and emotional shit-flinging?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)
You started a thread about what people your age ought to be made to do, and SURPRISE!!! you're not doing it because you don't wanna.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts) You claim to know so much about me, yet you don't seem to know I'm joining the military, something I've said multiple times on the site. So your point just fails.
If you're just going to keep trying to troll me and act like a child, I'm going to ignore you.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)If you're so convinced it would be mandatory and it's so good for young people, why haven't you marched your adolescent ass over to the recruiter and signed up already?
And if you haven't because you're doing other shit with your life right now, why aren't you respecting other young people's right to make that same decision?
You're a little hypocrite.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)How do you know I haven't joined already? Second of all, even if I haven't, I'm supposed to drop everything I'm doing right this second because of your petty insults and accusations against me? Grow up.
I'm not being hypocritical at all here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that a 19 who intends to enlist right now, might not take the oath before a year is out?
By the way, I expect more from adults. Why not argue the merits of it and leave your emotion to the side? Serious.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and you also know that there is a force draw down, they are not in a rush to enlist people.
But of course you are acting like the bully with a 19 year old, who actually asked a valid question. Never mind, no draft, the power structure is not interested in one. It is bad, really bad, for business.
So don't worry about it.
But do try to act like an adult.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There is a general allergy to the mere concept. People break up in hives
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)They act like I'm a Nazi or something.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I plan to join as soon as everything I want to do beforehand is done. I guess this really pisses off this lady.
TBF
(36,467 posts)you have the free time at 19 years of age to post all day on the internet. I looked at my own posts vs. yours. I have posted some 23K+ posts since I worked on the Obama primary in 2008. That's about 383 posts a month on average (23,000/60 mos. - I think that is right - probably a little lower since I joined in Feb). In contrast you've been here a few weeks and posted over 700 while you consider your many options and opine that all the other young people should be conscripted to the military.
God bless America.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)my niece is going to college, has dates, you know the regular stuff. and she is VERY active on Facebook
It used to be the Mickey Ds, and the mall, these days it is the Net.
TBF
(36,467 posts)be caught dead on there anyway. Facebook is old news & they are already on to Instagram, other media, and gaming. DU is not social media - most of the folks posting on here (especially to the tune of 700+ posts in a few weeks) are retired baby boomers, unemployed, or stay at home parents.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but whatever. I get it. You don't, that is ok. Some of the kids I met at OWS posted here until they were given the boot, firmly, by people who hounded them out of here. I personally do not want that to happen, but if you wish for youth (that rarely are active) not to post, by all means.
TBF
(36,467 posts)we've known each other quite awhile both here and at Old Elm.
I have no idea about your anecdotal experience but we have young posters in our socialist group and I encourage rather than push them away.
But I am not going to put up with fascism whether it's coming from a supposed 19 year old or someone much older. I really think you need to re-read her posts from the beginning.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)national service is not fascism.
But do not worry, the elite agrees with you, we don;t need one either.
And I am not insulting you, but I see plenty of people, adults who should know better, bullying a kid. She is holding her own, but I see classic bully behavior and I will not abide by it.
As to the old elm...
TBF
(36,467 posts)where we differ is thinking that we are dealing with a kid.
And we may differ on elements of fascism ... but that would be another post for another time.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I suppose I should be doing the obvious thing here, but I won't. I bid you a good evening. And yes, we are dealing with a kid.
Kali
(56,815 posts)everyone else sees DUers reacting to trollery.
uppityperson
(116,013 posts) greatauntoftriplets
(178,901 posts) bowens43
(16,064 posts)fuck freedom right? Fuck free will right? Enslave the masses is what you are advocating. fuck that
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Emotion out and discuss this in a rational manner.
Don't worry, it is bad for business, so a draft, or any other form of service that could promote a we ain't gonna happen
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)n/t
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Unless we have a real, necessary war going on.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Although on paper it would suggest that everyone from all classes would be on equal par, is not factually correct based on historical evidence during previous occurrences when the draft was the policy put in place during war time. Let's just take recent history as the example Viet Nam. Those from the wealthy class who did not wish to serve or be sent to war were easily able to avoid either service or being to sent to the front. A number of those people ended up in Congress and the White House just in the past 20 years. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and long list of others.
That should tell you something regarding your position on the matter, apart from the fact that the draft is simply legalized slavery.
I see 745 replies and a little over a dozen recs. If the weight of anyone else's' argument isn't enough to reconsider your position, then the ratio of rec count vs replies on this op should be enough to give this a bit more thought than to promote a policy that I should think would be widely opposed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but I do not consider national service slavery. I also come from a country with a deep sense of we, not I, myself and only for myself. That is not sustainable for any society.
Also I do not consider military service the limit of civil service.
It is so bad that people who serve in the public sphere in this country are made fun off in this country, that includes county and city workers.
It is a sorry state of affairs, and not sustainable.
She was considering ONLY military, but when you look at policies abroad, it is not just the army. And she is willing to consider the California Conservation Corp, or EMTs serving in rural areas, shit like that, as part of it. And it should. It would help with this sense of anomie that has infected the nation.
Would you be opposed to this form of slavery, as you called it, with people serving along side firefighters in the California Conservation Corp?
But seriously, 30 + years of propaganda as to the evils of all government are partly at the root of this very unhealthy attitude.
I don't expect you to reconsider that attitude of yours. I really don't. But this all service is evil is pretty much a success of this... "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Do not worry though, national service is not coming anytime soon. In fact, it will not come back as long as the oligarchy controls things and it is really bad for profits. I mean that. And the brass does not want it either. They all remember Vietnam, but for very different reasons than you do.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I think it might be interesting and useful to posit a theory for instituting a "national service" policy that would actually be, a fair system, (no deferments due to how well connected) be applied to all citizens, regardless of class and status.. SANS military conscription and everything that would imply and include.
My argument has nothing at all to do with the teahadist meme you're assigning to me here: "all government is evil". I don't subscribe to that meme.
I do know our government has strayed VERY FAR from it's constitutional purposes, therefore I do not hold our current state of governance with high esteem due to the extreme level of corruption and authoritarian policies that have been institutionalized as of the past several decades. It will take a high level of house cleaning and reform in order to restore my faith in it.
But public officials continue to be owned and controlled by corporate oligarchy, which is the case now, our nation will continue to be engaged in war fare that benefits THEM and NOT US. And until that changes radically, I will be on the front lines opposing any attempt to re-institute the draft.
I will not support offering up our youth for fodder and sacrificial lambs for the war makers and their
war-for-profit enterprises.
NOT EVER.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)a draft means troops, not Halliburton, work supply, KP and other parts of the military that have been privatized. They really do not want a military that can feed itself and has the capacity to build it's own facilities, that is what Hallibruton and KBR and the rest of the leeches are for.
That also means that our public sphere continues to be privatized
Of course I did notice you did not address the Fire Service getting augmented by people who are trained and ready to help in case of a major wild fire (which are becoming more common due to climate change) that same oligarchy would love to have far more privatized services, including the fire service.
As I said, you and the oligarchy do agree, for different reasons. But you do. So don't worry. it ain't coming back.
They do not want it because it is bad for profits, and damn it, it might give the people a sense of the we, not just this selfish, go shopping attitude.
I served. before you say it. So did my husband. And it was not slavery my dear. But don't worry, the oligarchy really does not want it, so you do not need to worry. All this is navel grazing. Go shopping. They prefer that anyway.
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...mainly civilians and gate security, which on camp Lejeune is a mix of MP's and private contractors. So while yes, private contractors want the military to keep using their personnel, the military isn't exactly and unwilling partner.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)a you scratch my back and I scratch yours.
But when people claim the oligarchy wants a national service in any shape or form, and the military is just one form it could take, they are ignoring even very recent history. After 911 a draft could have been instituted with some resistance from the older Nam era people. (Who fought to get rid of it). The fact that Bush told us to go shopping is sufficient to tell me that they prefer to abuse a smaller force, with repeated deployments as long as their friends in private sector benefit.
And a national service program could take many forms, even skipping the military. But none in the oligarchy want that. No way, and not becuase their kids would have to serve.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Mandatory civil defense training and then a few years of service of some kind I think was obviously necessary then and now, but as you say, the oligarchy will have none of that.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I'm not a "shopper" and I take offense to the notion that I would rather be. Having been raised in the military before and during Viet Nam, I know how this works in this country and the purposes of our military engagements. (WAR generally for oil and other resources).
Furthermore, I may not have specifically referred to fire fighting per se, but I was pretty clear, my dear, how a "national service" policy for community purposes might be something worth instituting. Fire fighting would be one of many different kinds of services that would be beneficial throughout the country.
But's that's an entirely DIFFERENT discussion than re-instituting THE DRAFT.
A difference with a HUGE DISTINCTION.
I have to say, that I'm rather surprised and taken aback with your hard lined position supporting military draft in this country. Maybe it's worth having in countries that don't make it a habit of invading other countries on bullshit lies. We're not in the habit of going to war for self defense, we're in the habit of being the aggressors, in case you haven't noticed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)if they can help it.
And by the way, you are still missing that I am not intending this as EXCLUSIVELY a military draft. keep ignoring that.
It will not happen. The OLIGARCHY does not want it, of any type. Whether it is serving on the front lines of a fire, or EMS, or serving in the peace corp. They don't want it. CAPICE NOW?
And a national service is closely related to a draft.
Don't worry, they do want you to oppose it, and they want you to oppose all types of national services. They want that becuase they want people to keep shopping. Any kind of national service would force people to pay attention, and it is bad for business.
So this is not up for discussion. It is simply really bad for business.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I'm insisting that a very clear and unambiguous distinction be made arguing for the benefits of a mandatory national service for domestic / community purpose, not to include in anyway a mandatory conscription policy for military purposes, aka THE DRAFT.
I don't agree with you that the Oligarchy doesn't want us involved in their wars for their profit and gain, they have in the past and they will in future. I think it's rather naive of you to deny that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Go shopping was the message
Short of a world war, it ain't gonna happen. Period. .
2banon
(7,321 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is why you did not see a draft after 911 and the day after they would have zero opposition to one.
?8aff03de2423e912a2467e97388a07f5331c05b6
This is why you will not see a draft. Those kids grew up and became somewhat active and then went to sleep. You see, you got a few lessons from Nam, they got a completely different set of them. And trust me, if you had a bunch of kids in the army, Afghanistan would have not lasted as long as it has (right now we have a poverty draft, they volunteered crapola), and perhaps Iraq would have never happened.
It is easy to commit troops when they are volunteers. Don't believe me? Most of the grand history of the US Military has been a volunteer force. The exceptions truly were the US Civil War, WW I, limited, WW II, Korea and Vietnam. The rest of the conflicts we have sent our volunteer poor to lands over there, to do whatever we asked them to do. That ranges from the war with Spain, to the war with Mexico. Hell, even the 1812 war was fought mostly by volunteers.
But don't worry, they prefer a praetorian guard, so this will never happen, and a civil service in the US could be bad for contractors as well. And my god, make people engaged really could be bad for business. So yes, you and the oligarchy agree on this one. Mind you, for different reasons, but you do.
And yes, there are benefits to service and citizenship, but some of them are not the ones our oligarchy wants. They prefer a mostly disengaged population, and asking that population to serve in any capacity means they engage in the system, and that is not good.
Yes, I am that damn cynical about it, and I find it funny how people resist this idea that as far as the draft is concerned, or any form of service, the right, the left, the middle class and the oligarchy agree. It is not a good idea. The reasons are different, but they agree.
Don't worry, short of a World War, you will not see a draft, and if we have a world war, I still give it 50\50 odds
2banon
(7,321 posts)yes, that very day, they got their wars now.
I'm not alone, and Viet Nam Era people in the Bay Area knew exactly what was coming.
We talked about it on the radio, we talked about it on our local msg boards, we talked in huge meetings, rallies until we turned to the streets.
So NO, we were NOT ASLEEP.
I do agree we have a disengaged citizenry, nationally. I do agree that the genx-ers seem mainly into shopping for the new apple or google device.
But a draft is not the solution to civic engagement.
There are folks from the Viet Nam era that seem to think that a draft will prevent a new Vietnam, or Iraq even. Sadly they are misguided, and somehow fail to remember that the draft did not prevent nor end that war. And some of my anti-war friends seem to think that our massive demonstrations ended that war. Nothing could be further from the truth on both instances.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I see.
Evidence is evidence and there was zero draft, well except for the traditional poverty draft but none cares about that.
2banon
(7,321 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is a cute attack though.
TBF
(36,467 posts)but it is maddening to see blatant hawking on DU. I guess I should know better by now but it's still frustrating ...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)with a volunteer force that pretty much did not say no Sir at any one moment. It is very easy to do so with a volunteer force.
Suppose that if I told you the Brass also opposes a draft since they got problems, not with draftees fighting, but with draftees coming home and doing things like throwing their medals at the Pentagon. They were right. A praetorian guard would not do that.
Worst, some of those draftees when to college and activated other youth. And then a few dared to go to Congress. Winter solder pretty much came from those nasty draftees. So the brass concluded that they did not want ever again to deal with draftees. It was the wrong conclusion. After all draftees will not resist what is perceived as a good war, see WW II, but they will resist an unpopular one, see Vietnam.
And given that most of the history of the US Military we have had a professional force drawn from the poor and rural areas, led by mostly Southern Officers...with some hailing from northern rural and small towns...or the inner city.
Yup, all groups drew different lessons from Nam, but ironically they all agree, we do not need no stinking draft. (And there are valid reasons for not wanting a Nam type of a draft by the way)
But to always be opposed to service, allows the attacks, very successful mind you, on all public institutions. Reagan was right, the nine words to be feared is "I am from the government and I am here to help you." I think that has been internalized in the US at some scary levels, and civil service would help reverse that. Don't worry they are not going to do that. They don't want that.
Don't worry, it ain't coming back, we are all navel gazing here. But I will defend somebody who is getting bullied for expressing a view that her seniors find abhorrent on many emotional grounds.
Then there are those of us who saw our husbands (I know they volunteered who cares?) do back to back pacs, with an up tempo that has pretty much done major damage to morale and the force, But hey, they volunteered, who the fuck cares? But hey, we support the troops, HOORAY!!!
TBF
(36,467 posts)you are going on about. I made a comment about imperialism in general to another DUer. It had nothing to do with you or your protege (for lack of a better term) and certainly nothing to do with a draft. 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Definitely have a wonderful day.
But I get bullied here regularly by people I have concluded have an agenda. I will not let bully behavior stay unanswered.
TBF
(36,467 posts)and yes you have not been treated kindly by many. I know about that cave site and what they've said about you. They are jerks.
I think you've picked the wrong new member to defend that's all. And I could be wrong as well. Just my opinion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will not abode by bullying, period. So if you get bullied, I will stand by you.
As to wrongness or rightness, it is in the eye of the beholder.
The cave has it's nasty, racist agenda. We have those people here m'kay, who bully, berate, stalk, and the rest. They are character assassins, a few if then. They the ones with the agenda here.
2banon
(7,321 posts) 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The last "good war" and purely by accident was WW2. And that was accidental, and the military had no issues with good order and discipline because it was accepted as such. Vietnam was a very bad war. A very unpopular one, and one that leads us to this, all service is bad. All of it. And the oligarchy laughs all the way to the bank.
There are billions upon billions to be made in all kinds of privatization.
I find it all kinds of funny that people attack out of emotion, because it is emotion. Me, I, and myself is the current ethos, and not sustainable.
But if you think I said nam was a good war, you'd better reread what I said. Suffice it to say, I served and consider that a critical formative experience. It is one reason why I think government can work and we need to stop this war on the public sphere, one of many.
But you are correct in one thing, we cannot have this conversation in the US. This thread is evidence A of why it cannot be done, and the 1% thanks all of you for it! as Halluburton and KBR and the rest laugh all tje way to the bank
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But reading more, I think a National Service system should be all encompassing, but in times of need, more focus on the military.
Honestly, I was expecting some opposition here, but assumed a lot would agree and a real discussion on how such a system could be constructed and advocated would be presented, but I actually seemed to have struck a nerve with a lot here.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Most here simply make comments like yours: comparing compulsory service to slavery (laughable) and just some glibbers about how unfair similar systems were in the past, ignoring how it can be done fairly.
I'm under no illusion this will ever happen, largely because of the selfishness of others.
" UPDATE: There's a good debate over this post in the comments section. I'd say this to sum it up: Many people think a draft wouldn't be administered fairly - a very real, very worthy concern. However, what I find troubling is that assuming a draft WOULD be administered fairly, a lot of folks in the comments section nonetheless seem to say the concept of a draft of compulsory national service would be immoral and that it "plays games with our kids" for a political ploy. But then, if you believe we need a military to defend this country, and if you believe we need police and firefighters and community service workers, why do you think its moral that OTHER people should do that FOR society, rather than EVERYONE having to contribute to those efforts? I'm sorry, but that's not moral - that seems selfish. Now, maybe you don't believe we need a military or police or firefighters or any of that. Fine, then your argument against a draft is consistent. But if you believe we need those things but oppose any sort of draft or national service requirement, why do you think its fair or equitable or moral to ask only others to do that, but not yourself or your family? Food for thought..."
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=796
2banon
(7,321 posts)I take deep offense to the condescending, patronizing tone and rhetoric, not to mention the lecture which I received more than my share growing up in the military, thank you very much.
My opposition to legalized slavery aka THE DRAFT, which you have the abhorant audacity to laugh at, is absolutely immoral at the very least.
When we decide as a nation to never again willingly engage in war fare, OTHER than in direct self-defense of our (50 state) nation against aggressors from other nations, is the only exception, if necessary to provide for an adequate defense. I would suspect that citizens would naturally engage in self-defense in or out of the military. That's if and when we finally shed ourselves of imperialistic policies which is too often manifested by dropping bombs or storm trooping through neighborhoods and nevermind collateral damage of innocent lives in sovereign nations throughout the world.
I'm done with this, you of course may have the last word.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)the two.
So Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Norway, for some examples, are immoral nations practicing slavery? Give me a break.
2banon
(7,321 posts)when did any of those countries engage in acts of aggression against another nation? Oh yeah, not in recent history. they do have a history of other countries invading their borders so yeah, they each have a legitimate reason for required service. Again, very different.. your inability to make the distinction is a serious cognitive dissonance on your part. not my problem. good bye.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Stop with the nonsense hyperbole and be consistent with your argument.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)On Thu Apr 24, 2014, 08:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
So conscription is only slavery if one goes to war? I don't see how that makes any sense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4862407
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Continuation of borderline insults which is unnecessary. Yes, it is mild compared to many insults that have been hidden, but if you take the time, oh god why you, to look through this thread, this poster continues to just skirt the edge. Hide a post, send to MIRT or admin please. Close to 800 posts in under 2 weeks, many like this. Is it too borderline to hide? Up to you. thank you jury.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 24, 2014, 08:34 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, you even know there is not a violation. Why waste our time?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, it doesn't rise to the level of a hide-able comment.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. There is nothing wrong with this post or any of their other post. Yes, it is too borderline to hide, especially when on DU nowadays the standard is to step firmly over the line and bash your opponent with direct and sometimes vile insults. See any anti-gun thread if you are confused.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's strange that I've gotten one of these notices once before, apparently I've really offended some here? That wasn't my intention.
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)agbdf
(200 posts)No way. I don't think a draft will discourage militarism. Some of our most militaristic times were when we had a draft. Nor would a draft necessarily include the rich as, historically, they have always found an out through school deferments or other ways. Also, our Army is soon to be the smallest it's been since pre-WWII at a little over 400,000 activity duty. Each year there are over 3 million young people who become of age and are considered fit for military service. Where would you put these people? You would have to create another 30 plus divisions and supporting units as well as headquarters. This would cause our defense budget to skyrocket to an unsustainable and unaffordable level.
If everyone doesn't end up serving (3 million a year) then how do we decide who would serve and who wouldn't be forced to serve and therein is the potential for mass injustice and inequality. Would you just draft the fifty percent who are males? That won't fly. Do you just draft those who aren't going to college? Even more unfair and beneficial to the rich. Are you ready to massively increase the size of the Army to WWII levels? Even if we could afford this(and we can't) how would it decrease militarism or military adventurism? Do you really think our politicians would just treat this new mega military as a parade force and not actually find things for it to break and people for it to kill?
President Obama is transforming our military into a small, highly trained and exceptionally mobile force. This is the best strategy for the future of our military and not conscription. I like Salon but, I don't think that they have thought this out very well.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I should have added these: http://www.creators.com/liberal/david-sirota/the-military-s-40-year-experiment.html
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=796
I think a military that in some part isn't built on conscription is a recipe for disaster.
wundermaus
(1,673 posts)Every single American Citizen (Sorry - there are NO exceptions) must serve 10 years in the military services upon reaching the age of 65. That would put an end war to for the United States ONCE and FOR ALL. I don't know about you, but just feeling the way I do about being alive after 60... the idea of fighting a war at 65 is so abhorrent, so vile, that bullets would be flying in ALL directions if some nut put a gun in my hands. Let's be really clear about military service. You are trained to become a professional killer. And then you kill when and where you are told to do so. If that isn't slavery then what the hell is it? Isn't 13 years of indoctrination in the "school" system enough brain washing for you? Do you need to be beaten about the head and shoulders, too?
In case you haven't heard, war is obsolete. That's right, just like the horse and buggy. You know why? Because we have gotten so damn good at it that we can effectively kill every living thing on the planet, hundreds (hell, why not millions of times, it doesn't really matter at that point anyway) of times over. Isn't it finally time we learned how to live together and do what we are here for? Life is a Miracle. Let's learn to help each other, to make this a beautiful and profoundly meaningful existence for everybody.
I propose a different mandatory service: the Peace Corp.
How about every American Citizen serve a mandatory 4 years of public service in the peace corp at age 65? Do you think the world would be a better place if our senior citizens were deployed around the world to lift people out of hunger, poverty, illiteracy, and neglect? I think it would be. How would the world view that form of imperialism? I think it would plant the ideals of brotherhood. Hell, I think that would be a great idea. I think it would put perspective, purpose and, a period at the end of a life. Of course, if a person wanted to volunteer at 18 (and ONLY at 18 years of age) to serve instead of waiting until they were 65, well, i say, "good for them"!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Though even more unrealistic than what I propose
War being obsolete unfortunately is a pipe dream, and not sure what you mean by education being indoctrination?
stone space
(6,498 posts)"but all would have to go through some sort of boot camp, basic training"
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)handle stress to do that.
TBF
(36,467 posts)except this one. I wonder why?
Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)Kingofalldems
(40,241 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"Interesting challenge"? What do you mean?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And you haven't said what is the "interesting challenge".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not everyone is fit for or right for military service.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It would not be good for the US to be a military state.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And what I propose would be the exact opposite of a military state. An all volunteer military leads to a military state.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And again, what was this "interesting challenge" you mentioned?
I'm just saying you're not constructing a good argument here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I was kind of hoping to know what you meant by "interesting challenge" still but I bid you farewell then.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And what would the requirements for being designated a "CO" be? (Previous requirements didn't work out too well.)
What if you seriously disagree with your country altogether? Should simply being born in a country and therefore a citizen make one agree to serve something one completely disagrees with?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think I'd go with what Germany used to do with CO's during their conscription.
"What if you seriously disagree with your country altogether? Should simply being born in a country and therefore a citizen make one agree to serve something one completely disagrees with? "
Yeah, the same with every other obligation. Of course you can always leave the country, I'd presume. I think it should be easier for those who clearly don't want to be Americans to renounce their citizenship and leave. You'll be on your own then.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I hardly think so.
In fact, many people are actually forbidden to travel by air at all. Not to mention one must be accepted by another country to live in it. If one doesn't like where they were born, they are not just free to go somewhere else.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)citizenship. If you've put THAT much effort into fleeing, then yeah, why should you be bound to the US?
"In fact, many people are actually forbidden to travel by air at all. Not to mention one must be accepted by another country to live in it. If one doesn't like where they were born, they are not just free to go somewhere else. "
If someone is going to try to flee because they're such a big baby they can't do two or so years of service, they have to put up with the risks.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)hours a week of community service. This could range from reading to kids at schools to helping out in recycle projects locally to helping out at a home for the elderly. Then they could put this experience on a job application later on and our communities improve at the same time. Everybody wins.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Because this sounds like a good idea, honestly.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)This is 100% in the same vein as the New Deal just like the CCC. We're getting older and sicker as a country. Why not let some of the younger able bodied people look in on their neighbors who need a little help and then they can document the experience and it counts toward your weekly community service? 10 hours a week is just 2 hours a day mon-fri. We could still do welfare and the people who get it would be doing these communities a service.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Too bad not even this idea will ever happen in this country...
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)All it is is a little community service and neighbors helping each other.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...with military compensation so good that more people want to pursue it as a career.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Having conscription as apart of the equation is better. I think people who choose to have a career in the military after doing their mandatory service is fine, but not having the military just be a career option.
And what do you mean this nation isn't worth defending? You live in it and benefit from it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but you didn't say what problem you're trying to solve.
I didn't say the nation isn't worth defending.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I also think the fight should have been to make the draft fair, not to get rid of the draft.
The problems I'm trying to address are mainly the adventurism of the military and the inequality of the make up of the military. That and social issues with Americans, namely young ones. Mind you, I'm proposing a military/civil service requirement where people who can't make it or absolutely refuse the military will do civil defense work.
It just seemed you implied America isn't worth defending, which is an offensive notion.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...might address some of your concerns, which I share. However! On no known planet would en entrenched ruling class such as ours not simply exempt themselves. I will never support a draft before that problem is dealt with, and if we were able to deal with it, I suspect we would not need or want a draft.
One of the problems associated with the last US draft was low pay. A captive work force that cannot collectively bargain is instantly deprofessionalized and loses important incentives for success. Morale suffers in direct (if not geometric) proportion. Low military pay causes the same sort of economic malaise that low pay in any sector does, and is championed by the same cheap-labor conservatives.
When I say I want this nation to be more worth defending, I mean that I want it to value its citizens' humanity and its labor more highly. Build me that nation, and I think you'll find plenty of volunteers who would serve cheerfully and compete for success. We would be the sort of nation that didn't semi-declare wars for profit, and didn't glorify weaponry over courage, honor and dedication.
Until we build that nation, I will not consign anyone to involuntary service.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)The rich having to serve yes is apart of it, but the poor being made to serve would also bring benefits, mainly to the poor themselves. I say this as someone who grew up in rather poor communities.
"One of the problems associated with the last US draft was low pay. A captive work force that cannot collectively bargain is instantly deprofessionalized and loses important incentives for success. Morale suffers in direct (if not geometric) proportion. Low military pay causes the same sort of economic malaise that low pay in any sector does, and is championed by the same cheap-labor conservatives. "
Yeah but we're talking of service and duty, not a career. In Austria, for example, National Service is crap pay, but that makes sense, since its not a career, its service. You can make it a career after your service ends though. Doesn't this make sense?
"When I say I want this nation to be more worth defending, I mean that I want it to value its citizens' humanity and its labor more highly. Build me that nation, and I think you'll find plenty of volunteers who would serve cheerfully and compete for success. We would be the sort of nation that didn't semi-declare wars for profit, and didn't glorify weaponry over courage, honor and dedication.
Until we build that nation, I will not consign anyone to involuntary service."
Yeah but mandatory service I think would go along ways to building this nation.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The involuntary service, which by the way carries a significant risk of death, must never be implemented...at least not until we manage to defuse America's colonialism and the wealthy's ability to opt out. I don't really understand a desire to put that particular cart before the horse.
My socioeconomic and moral theories may be worth considering, but I want safeguards in place before some poor bastard is pressed into service and ordered to kill and die for them.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"The involuntary service, which by the way carries a significant risk of death, must never be implemented...at least not until we manage to defuse America's colonialism and the wealthy's ability to opt out. I don't really understand a desire to put that particular cart before the horse. "
Okay, but what about in a more egalitarian society? I'm not even really talking of a war draft here, just a National Service system. I'd rather refocus our military toward the National Guard, and make everyone who can serve in that a few years, like in Switzerland.
"My socioeconomic and moral theories may be worth considering, but I want safeguards in place before some poor bastard is pressed into service and ordered to kill and die for them."
What about you?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...when our current war machine is run by Cheneys, Boehners and their billionaire profiteer masters who ultimately determine salaries as well as when and where casualties will occur.
If we had a more egalitarian society, people from all (or nearly all) walks of life would be represented in the military, and we wouldn't be invading so many other countries. I think we might not have any military need for such a draft under those circumstances, but it might help guarantee employment.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"I think we might not have any military need for such a draft under those circumstances, but it might help guarantee employment."
How do you mean by this?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...wouldn't be perennially beating the drums of war, inventing needs for draftees.
A draft does tend to put the brakes on war, as we saw in Vietnam, I think. It's damned slow, though, and i will not condemn anyone to being first in line to kill and die in the next oil war.
That's all I have to say. No draft until we solve our war problem, and probably not even then.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I just think it's the only ethical thing to do in a necessary war, and having the option available prevents unnecessary wars. I do think in a necessary war, once you're out of high school, you should be expected to serve in the military. And in peacetime civil defense training should be mandated for most.
TBF
(36,467 posts)capitalism "fair" - good luck. As long as we have an economic system in which the $$$ is hoarded by the few at the top nothing is "fair". It is easy as snapping your fingers for someone to be leaned on and all of a sudden draft numbers are lost. The very wealthy are going to serve only if they want to - that is how the game is played.
It wouldn't be so bad if we sat in our country and defended it. But that is not what we do. What we do in reality is defend our (CORPORATE) interests around the world. If you choose to die for that go right ahead - I notice though that you're still posting like mad and haven't made it down to the local recruiter's office - but I don't want my children dying for oil.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,190 posts)If it is to provide humanitarian aid and to provide discipline with a reward of education and or a job in the end, then I might support it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"If it is to provide humanitarian aid and to provide discipline with a reward of education and or a job in the end, then I might support it. "
Why do you say this? Why is this more pleasant for you?
liberal N proud
(61,190 posts)Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
If we are going to teach these kids something that is both beneficial to society and them and give them a future, then it could be value added.
War for Oil is not what we should be spending our youth on.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"If we are going to teach these kids something that is both beneficial to society and them and give them a future, then it could be value added.
War for Oil is not what we should be spending our youth on."
Then how would you structure a mandatory service system?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)you... ask what you can do for your country."
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Judging from this thread.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)that's making people nuts.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Wouldn't this be perceived as a strange meme from the party of choice? How could we be proponents of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body at the same time that we want to force her body into some kind of service she may not want to participate in.
**I say this is as someone who tried the Army in college**
How would we be different from republicans who think they have the right to think for people...on same sex marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc...if we simply attempted to do the same thing. I mean, I get that it sounds like "it would be good for the community". But, republicans have a long list of things that they want for supposedly the same reason.
Why would we want to deny people the right to a choice? It just doesn't sound like a progressive idea. In fact, it sounds a bit regressive. I know you don't want slavery. But, why wouldn't it be perceived as such, by a country with people in it, who are descendants of slavery.
I don't think this is a very good idea. The only time I hear it mentioned is when people think others have become too entitled. It's always others. Although, my first thought is that one would have to feel mighty entitled to sit around and plot involuntary servitude for others.
As for a sense of community...it certainly doesn't give me a feeling of community thinking about it. Would my grandchildren, find themselves in the same predicament as my ancestors? Whose to say, the people who find themselves in charge of a "automatic, guaranteed" workforce would treat them properly.
Slaves weren't treated properly. Indentured servants weren't treated properly. Heck, not even grad students and athletes are treated properly. We don't have a history of things like this working well. Maybe it does work for some countries. Few countries have our history, though. We couldn't say that something that works well in Norway would work for America. America isn't Norway. What works there couldn't possibly be generalized to any other place except Norway...or places that were darn similar to Norway.
I think it would be hypocritical for the party of choice, to eliminate...choice???
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)their lives. But it's not a contradiction to expect two or three years of service as basically the last part of mandatory education, unless you think mandatory education in any form is bad? That's all I see it as, mandatory education. Instead of it ending with high school, it ends after two or so years of mandatory service, which would be good for most kids if you ask me.
I can't really take the slavery analogy seriously. Can you find me a National Service system right now that's rife with the sort of abuses you bring up?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Military service for citizenship is a big theme in the book.
Taking the idea for generally: I think defaulting to military service is a mistake. The US doesn't need more soldiers. Your military is already ridiculously colossal. What I think would work better would be a term of national service where you could choose from a few options. Off the top of my head, you'd have options of the military, the peace corp, a civilian engineering corp to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure and maybe a couple of other things. That way, if you don't want to join the military, you spend your two years teaching math in the third world or building low-income housing or something.
I also don't think it should be tied to citizenship as some people, such as the severely disabled, would be unable to do their service.
That said, I would question how you're going to pay these people. Your average squaddie is already underpaid and you can't force them to do service for free (that really would be slavery) so where are their wages going to come from?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)All I remember was crappy cgi bugs and bad acting. Want me to read the book?
"Taking the idea for generally: I think defaulting to military service is a mistake. The US doesn't need more soldiers. Your military is already ridiculously colossal. What I think would work better would be a term of national service where you could choose from a few options. Off the top of my head, you'd have options of the military, the peace corp, a civilian engineering corp to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure and maybe a couple of other things. That way, if you don't want to join the military, you spend your two years teaching math in the third world or building low-income housing or something. "
Yeah you're probably right, this is basically what they did in Germany and still do in Austria. How would you structure such a system?
"I also don't think it should be tied to citizenship as some people, such as the severely disabled, would be unable to do their service. "
Of course I'd allow deferments and exemptions, just not very liberally.
"That said, I would question how you're going to pay these people. Your average squaddie is already underpaid and you can't force them to do service for free (that really would be slavery) so where are their wages going to come from?"
I think it'd be crappy pay obviously, but that wouldn't be the point.
LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)But FUCK no!
Involuntary conscriptions goes against everything I believe in. Autonomy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties, social justice, pacifisim, and human rights.
I would vehemently oppose this with every fiber of my being.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)" Autonomy, freedom, liberty, civil liberties, social justice, pacifisim, and human rights. "
Would you say Austria for example is violating human rights then?
LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)By which I mean a person choosing to join the military does not take anyone's autonomy away. Involuntary conscription, forcing a person to join the military strips a person of everything I mentioned.
If Austria is forcing conscription (to which I admit to not knowing), then yes I do think they are violating human rights. Any country that forces military service on threat of punishment, fine, or denial of the full rights of citizenship is stripping their people of human rights.
Israel, Germany, Austria, Saudi Arabia, any country that does that should be condemned.
And I am not even going to mention the possibility of superiors in the military trying and instill a pro-military attitudes into the involuntary recruits.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Well, I just used Austria as an example because they have a National Service requirement for males that they serve in the military or in civil works for a year or two. How is this a human rights violation?
"And I am not even going to mention the possibility of superiors in the military trying and instill a pro-military attitudes into the involuntary recruits."
I assumed conscription would actually counteract this?
LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)What isn't taking their rights away about that?
Someone with anti-military views is not going to join the military by their own volition. If they don't choose to join they can't have views forced upon them by would be superiors.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"Someone with anti-military views is not going to join the military by their own volition. If they don't choose to join they can't have views forced upon them by would be superiors."
You're ignoring my OP and other posts...
LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)And they have not been given full rights of citizenship yet. Many of their rights and privileges have been bestowed upon their parents/or guardians.
Upon reaching the age of 18 (or earlier depending on the state) no one is forced to go to school and may drop out when they wish. Prior to that parents have the option to withdraw their children and homeschool them if they want.
I see nothing in your OP going against what I said. The closest thing I see is your comments on CO and bootcamp.
Which still causes this problem. In fact, one of the goals of bootcamp is to strip away one's individualism.
If you said something in response to this to another poster then I am sorry I missed it but I did come into this gargantuan thread at around ~900 post mark.
In my year at DU I have yet to see a thread this big before. I have seen 400 post threads and one that reached 600, but this is boardering on and will probably surpass a 1000 before it dies.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But why do you draw the line for children anyhow? I'm just wondering, because it still seems selective.
"Upon reaching the age of 18 (or earlier depending on the state) no one is forced to go to school and may drop out when they wish. Prior to that parents have the option to withdraw their children and homeschool them if they want. "
Yes and like in some countries, this should be modified slightly, IMO.
"I see nothing in your OP going against what I said. The closest thing I see is your comments on CO and bootcamp. "
I guess you didn't read any of the links...
"Which still causes this problem. In fact, one of the goals of bootcamp is to strip away one's individualism. "
Yeah, that's part of what I think should be done, individualism should be tempered with some collectivism and sense of community. That's part of it. But to say it totally erases one individual identity is laughable.
"If you said something in response to this to another poster then I am sorry I missed it but I did come into this gargantuan thread at around ~900 post mark.
In my year at DU I have yet to see a thread this big before. I have seen 400 post threads and one that reached 600, but this is boardering on and will probably surpass a 1000 before it dies."
Fair enough, My apologizes. I've gotten a few comments and even DM's in support of my response and a whole lot of negative responses that have left me with a "I've already answered this" attitude, since most people have the same objections...
LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)But then again there are some 35 year olds are should not be classified as mature adults either.
I draw the difference because the vast majority of children are incapable of the abstract and critical thinking of adults. This is why we have an age of adulthood and age of consent in this country. The brain of a child is not fully developed; and while it is true that we don't all mature at the same rate the vast majority of children have sufficient mental development by this age to make more complex decisions.
Its placement at 18 is arbritary, and if up to me I would set it slightly higher, but it is the age our country decided upon. Regardless, their rights still do exist but are managed by a custodian until the age of adulthood. If the custodian does not want their child to go to school they have the ability to choose to home school the child.
I agree. Personally I would argue that it should be around 21 years of age but that is me. That said, even if we did move up the age, I feel that someone who the country does not feel is mentally ready to vote is most certainly not mentally ready to risk their lives for the country or to face the grueling nature of boot camp.
I did not say "totally erases one individual indentity" and to make that claim is Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Not all forms of collectivism are equal and some are arguably harmful. In particular, the vertical or heirarchal collectivism promoted by the military as opposed to the horizontal collectivism of a charity. This type of collectivism furthers authoratarian attitudes and discourages questioning of the status quo.
If the military were such a great place to achieve the collectivist attitudes we want to promote why is it currently such a hotbed of conservatism currently? Because its promoting the wrong type of collectism.
Horizontal collectivism, on the otherhand promotes democracy, egalitarianism and more progressive attitudes. Rather than squalsh individuals it takes their thoughts into consideration and makes decisions as a group. I believe the way to promote this is through fixing and expanding our educational system and promoting VOLUTARY civil service such as working at a soup kitchen as opposed to such extremes as boot camp.
Forcing any type of service is only going to cause resentment and disdain and if anything, is going to drive young people away from such endevours in the future. Fostering a culture of voluntary service will promote people doing these sort of things because they WANT to, and that will extend far further into the future than simply till their requirements are met.
And if these people don't choose the military then so be it. If the military can't convince people to join without the use of force, then either there is something very wrong with the military that needs fixing...or it shows a lack of public support for the uses of the military by the political establishment (ie military action). Neither of the solutions to those problems require forced involuntary conscription, but either reforms to the military or political change.
Your links in your op did not seem to reflect any of my concerns as I am not trying to call this slavery or neocon and since I am opposed to this on principle, I have no interests on how other countries have gone about doing this before so I saw no reason to click any of them.
That said, I now have read all but the last one and did not see anything covering my concern. Rather It seemed like they glossed over it.
I stop reading every reply around 200 posts and only skim the replies to see if any of their reply lines catch my attention. I am probably not alone in this, and the odds are many probably only read the title line of the thread and that is all.
That said, that you are still making respones to relies in this thread is amazing. Your passion for this issue is commendable. But I still strongly oppose your proposition.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But then again, what I'm proposing would have the benefit of maturing people, no?
"I draw the difference because the vast majority of children are incapable of the abstract and critical thinking of adults. This is why we have an age of adulthood and age of consent in this country. The brain of a child is not fully developed; and while it is true that we don't all mature at the same rate the vast majority of children have sufficient mental development by this age to make more complex decisions. "
You're not fully developed at 18 though and I don't think mandatory education should end then. I think the end of mandatory education should be mandatory training and service in some sort of civil capacity, like in some other countries. I don't see what's so evil and bad about this.
"I agree. Personally I would argue that it should be around 21 years of age but that is me. That said, even if we did move up the age, I feel that someone who the country does not feel is mentally ready to vote is most certainly not mentally ready to risk their lives for the country or to face the grueling nature of boot camp. "
Well yes I actually do think 20, 21 should be the age of adulthood, but that's beside the point (I think the voting age should be lowered to 16 though). If someone was incapable of military training and service and totally unfit for civil defense, I don't see why some sort of service couldn't be found for them? Regardless, as my dad said, most could survive boot camp. It's not a gas chamber.
Personally, I'd want it to start at 16, 17 for drop outs who obviously aren't doing anything with their lives.
"I did not say "totally erases one individual indentity" and to make that claim is Reductio Ad Absurdum. "
You're acting like it though. Not everyone revolves around your individualism. People need to learn that.
"If the military were such a great place to achieve the collectivist attitudes we want to promote why is it currently such a hotbed of conservatism currently? Because its promoting the wrong type of collectism. "
This is due to its entirely all-volunteer basis actually.
"Not all forms of collectivism are equal and some are arguably harmful. In particular, the vertical or heirarchal collectivism promoted by the military as opposed to the horizontal collectivism of a charity. This type of collectivism furthers authoratarian attitudes and discourages questioning of the status quo. "
But that sort of authoritarianism is needed in some settings and everyone should be exposed to a little of it, if you ask me.
"Forcing any type of service is only going to cause resentment and disdain and if anything, is going to drive young people away from such endevours in the future. Fostering a culture of voluntary service will promote people doing these sort of things because they WANT to, and that will extend far further into the future than simply till their requirements are met. "
Can you prove this, because it seems to have the opposite effect in other countries.
"And if these people don't choose the military then so be it. If the military can't convince people to join without the use of force, then either there is something very wrong with the military that needs fixing...or it shows a lack of public support for the uses of the military by the political establishment (ie military action). Neither of the solutions to those problems require forced involuntary conscription, but either reforms to the military or political change. "
Finally we're in agreement on something.
"Your links in your op did not seem to reflect any of my concerns as I am not trying to call this slavery or neocon and since I am opposed to this on principle, I have no interests on how other countries have gone about doing this before so I saw no reason to click any of them. "
So you're not even going to read them, even if they address what you've mentioned. Gee, what a stunning means of furthering a dialogue. I really have nothing further to say on that, then.
Your principles seem hollow.
"That said, I now have read all but the last one and did not see anything covering my concern. Rather It seemed like they glossed over it. "
Okay? How so?
"That said, that you are still making respones to relies in this thread is amazing. Your passion for this issue is commendable. But I still strongly oppose your proposition."
Despite our disagreement, thanks
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)And if things keep going the way they are, a draft isn't far in the future . . .
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"And if things keep going the way they are, a draft isn't far in the future . . ."
How do you mean by this?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)under honorable conditions, see what the world was like, helped them to determine their futures...the draft made boys into men - who knew how to take care of uniforms, guns, understand why obedience was necessary. Some learned a trade, and everybody knew that it was temporary and in 2 years they'd be home again, smarter and more physically fit..
An all volunteer army does not seem fair - the public doesn't care as much as if children from all American families served in one way or another .........
There are and were exceptions . . .
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"under honorable conditions, see what the world was like, helped them to determine their futures...the draft made boys into men - who knew how to take care of uniforms, guns, understand why obedience was necessary. Some learned a trade, and everybody knew that it was temporary and in 2 years they'd be home again, smarter and more physically fit.. "
This is really interesting, what time period are you referring to?
How would you structure a mandatory service system?
"An all volunteer army does not seem fair - the public doesn't care as much as if children from all American families served in one way or another ........."
Strange how we're on the same page here
Agony
(2,605 posts)we're running it with a poverty draft right now anyway ( and a bunch of contractors)
otherwise we should shut down the military
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why do you think mandatory service is better than a "poverty draft"? Thanks for your input
Agony
(2,605 posts)that we will be without a standing army any time soon.
putting the underclass out front to fight our wars while the privileged spend their days pursuing happiness is despicable.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm just curious as to your ideas and thoughts.
Agony
(2,605 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 26, 2014, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Wouldn't we still need a standing army to defend ourselves? In this case, I think conscription should be used to some extent.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)that you say you desire, even if poverty were eliminated.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not that this would be a bad thing per se, just wondering.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
Jasana
(490 posts)Look... you already have the choice to go into the National Guard, the Peace Corp, whatever. Keyword here is "choice." Like... pro-choice. I don't believe I have to 'splain this on a democratic board.
Choice. With the type of personality I had, after I got out of high school, I just needed some unstructured "FREEDOM" time for me to figure out where I wanted to go next. Last thing in the world I wanted was other idiots structuring my time for me. So yeah, my first summer out of school was spent working in a tanning salon and reading War and Peace. My first winter was spent trying different jobs and figuring out if I wanted to try college yet since I had no clue what to major in. FSM forbid any one might be a rebel that dislikes authority...
Kids lives are so structured now, it must be painful for some of them. Between the testing in school, the helicopter parents, the rotten economy, the lack of decent jobs, the cost of college, unpaid internships... now you want to add civil service? That is nuts!
Choice, people. Not everyone is built like you. Choice. Pro-choice! (And I still can't believe I have to 'splain this on a damn democratic board.)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So it's not convincing to me.
Jasana
(490 posts)and I really could less if you're convinced or not. This has nothing to do with taxes or education. You are talking about forcing my physical body and my mind into doing something I don't want.
And forced work for the US Government? Hell no! Would you have worked for the US Government during the Bush years? Sorry. I don't support illegal wars, torture, kidnapping, extraordinary rendition or GITMO. I'm forced to support it with my taxes because that's how things roll but I'll be damned if I'll do civil service for the US Government... even now. That is nuts and your idea is nuts.
The answer is; "Just say no."
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why does it not apply to those? Why be so selective?
Jasana
(490 posts)Some people already don't pay taxes. They don't make enough money.
Some people don't have to do jury duty. They're disabled or sick.
Some people don't go to public school. They go private or home school.
Some people don't go to college. They go to work or a trade school.
My argument is not selective and you didn't answer my question. Would you have worked for the US Government during the Bush years? I would not have. I have the right to say no. Actually, it's not even an argument really.
Jasana says; "No."
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)"Some people already don't pay taxes. They don't make enough money. "
Or rich people who dodge them. Should we abolish taxes then?
"Some people don't have to do jury duty. They're disabled or sick. "
Abolish jury duty then?
"Some people don't go to public school. They go private or home school. "
By law, is it up to the kid? What if they never want to go to school? Hmm?
Your argument is bizarrely selective.
"I have the right to say no. "
No you don't, not to taxes or mandatory education or jury duty, etc.
Would I have worked in the government during the Bush years? Yes I would have.
Jasana
(490 posts)1) No you don't abolish taxes but some people do not pay federal taxes because they are too poor. This is fair. When they make enough money, they pay taxes and, currently, the rich don't pay enough taxes. This is called progressive taxing. We used to have it in the USA.
2) No you don't abolish jury duty but if a person is sick or disabled you do not force them to do it. When my grandmother was the main caregiver to my dying grandfather, the judge let her off jury duty. I am disabled and in constant pain so sorry, I can say no to jury duty. (Oh, look here! I have a doctor's note!) Before I became disabled I did jury duty the both times I was asked. This system is fair.
3) Kids have to go to school but their parents have choices where to send them. I did half my ed in public and half my ed in private and believe it or not, my grandparents respected me enough to ask me if I wanted to go to a private school before they sent me there in 5th grade. We actually sat down and had conversations about it. They laid out their reasons and let me decide what I wanted to do. Granted not every 5th grader is that mature but I was and I was lucky enough to have parents who didn't dictate my life to me like some over-puffed drill sargents.
And that is what you sound like to me... a nattering drill sargent and no, you have no right to tell me where my body and mind goes after K-12. Jesus Christ! You're not even related to me and I know for sure you don't have my best interests in heart. You can't even begin to empathize with someone who wants or needs to spend time outside your precious little viewpoint.
I had a very difficult childhood and had my grandparents not been in my life, I probably wouldn't even be here to argue with you. I shouldn't even need to explain myself to you. Your idea is simply ridiculous and the product of an authoritarian mind set.
You want to work for people like Bush (paid or unpaid) then fine, you have the choice to do so. As for me, my road had a lot of curves in it and it took me awhile to find my place. When I finally landed, it was at a non-profit foundation whose main focus was promoting social justice. You and I don't seem to have much in common.
No.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I think even you should know how silly that is. So the first two points aren't relevant.
"3) Kids have to go to school but their parents have choices where to send them. "
But do the kids get to decide? What if the kids don't ever want to go to school? You know some actually think kids should be given this choice? If you think this, fine, your argument is consistent, but if you think compulsory things like that should exist that inevitably shape and effect peoples lives to a great extent, I don't think your argument is consistent at all. I hope you can see why I have a problem with your argument here.
" a nattering drill sargent and no, you have no right to tell me where my body and mind goes after K-12. "
Not sure if that should be a compliment or an insult? But regardless, you prove my point. You don't actually object as you say you do, you just draw the line differently. Okay, but that's just subjective. I think the line should be moved up a bit. How is it any different?
So...maybe?
Jasana
(490 posts)to perform some sort of mandatory civil service requirement, then we simply completely disagree.
I value my personal autonomy far too much to allow the government to make this requirement legal. And judging by the length of this thread, I am not alone.
Making something like this legal comes down to "my way or the highway." I see that as yet another republican talking point. I have no interest in having the government stick it's business in my life anymore than it already does.
It's one thing if I am doing something that could hurt my fellow citizens... (like our current crop of anti-vaxxer nutjobs) but my refusing to hand over my life to the government after I finished k-12 hurts no one. All I ask is that you respect me enough to make my own decisions for myself. If this is request is so difficult for you to imagine, I have no idea what else to say.
The best we can do here is to agree to disagree. I truly wish you a good day. I'm off. You won't see me here to bother your thread again.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)things for people to do but not this, but as you say, we can agree to disagree.
I think we're hurting ourselves by losing community and connection and obligations.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)"
And I still can't believe I have to 'splain this on a damn democratic board.)"
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I can't remember the last one that got this big. Ii is so big it takes forever to load on my tablet.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)someone knows how to push buttons, under the guise of innocence. I wonder what version of this personality we are looking at.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Why not post a poll and see how the community feels about forced military service. That would settle this once and for all. But we both know you don't really care about conscription, so I am checking out of this thread. Enjoy your stay.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts) nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I see...
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I also see.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am fulfilling my promise to a T
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I was done with you the other day when you started your usual B.S. This is about the OP and their "motives"
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will continue to call you on harassing people.
So if you do not, I will not, but if you do, well... a promise is a promise.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)You seem to be bobbing and weaving lots of questions. BTW, who ask you to make the OP?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)"indeed"
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)The best part is the next time this stunt is pulled, we have this thread to reference. So you did shoot all your ammo in one thread, hope it was worth it.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)Why should anyone have to lay down their life or go get maimed against their wishes for a wildly unpopular war they disagree with, like it was during the Viet Nam War? Should people have been forced into the 2nd Iraq War? You do know that with the type of forced servitude, that is exactly what would happen, don't you? Really? Is that what you want to see happen?
That should be all the answer you need.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I'm not even mainly talking about that and you ignored my OP.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I'm a redstate bluegirl too
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)My dad is from Tennessee though, if that counts.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,875 posts)It's been a while.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,875 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Well thanks, most here don't seem too. Why do you agree?
A HERETIC I AM
(24,875 posts)Me - A HERETIC I AM. Been a member here for a thousand years.
You - AcertainLiz. Been a member here for fifteen minutes.
This thread - had 981 posts before I - A HERETIC I AM said a single word.
Why? because I don't give a fuck.
Like I said, I just want to see it get to a grand.
But, be that as it may,
Why do I agree with the idea that there should be some sort of mandatory national service?
[font size=12]BECAUSE IT IS A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, THAT'S WHY.[/font]
Clear?
Edit to add this; So...you did good. Nice thread. You should be proud. Damned few members get 500 replies to a thread after they have been here 5 years. You got one closing on 1000 replies and you have been here fifteen minutes! You have a record breaker here!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Kick
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Not that I care, but apparently this dude does. At least you've been nice and respectful to me.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,875 posts)YAY!
To hell with the subject matter!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I mean I figure you're just trying to troll me, but on the slight chance you're not, why do you think so? Again, yes it's kind of obvious you're just trying to be sarcastic and bother me, but might as well try to have a cogent and constructive discussion
zappaman
(20,627 posts)I love this train wreck of a thread!
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I was trying to figure out how to use Adam in a post but drew a blank
Rex
(65,616 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Politicians...
Banking Institutions...
Corporations...
Institutions of higher learning...
Broadcast media...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)How would you structure such a plan?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and pointing a gun at me won't make me like it any more than I do now. Your wish is violent.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And who said anything about pointing guns at each other?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)1: A consumer product. I don't own one.
2: A symbol, which has no inherent meaning, but many people attach some subjective meaning to them, and some people devote themselves to that meaning and/or some loyalty to it. I do not.
The OP did when s/he said it should be mandatory. How does the government make something mandatory? (hint, they use violence)
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So you're against taxation, mandatory education, and all laws period, correct? Since you did say "How does the government make something mandatory? (hint, they use violence) " And I'm the right-winger? Lol.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I am against shooting people, except in self defense. I am against locking people up, unless they are so violent we need to do so to protect everyone around them.
I never called you a right winger.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And you're contradicting yourself. You claim to be against forcing people to do anything under "threat of violence' yet that's what law and order is, and if you don't do mandatory duties in our society, which do exist, you get in trouble, with, oh my god, government force! So why is some compulsion okay and others aren't. I've asked this over and over again on the thread and I kind of don't want to leave until I get a clear answer...
Also, why don't you care about Americans if you live in America? You say you care about everyone on the planet, but clearly that would translate to national and social well-being for nations, no?
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Governments should not have the power to compel labour from individuals.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why not?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It won't die!
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts) NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)
kentauros
(29,414 posts)graywarriors' Neverending Thread!
glowing
(12,233 posts)There are many ways to serve. As long as the USA was willing to pay money, give "vouchers" toward college expenses, and pay for housing/ transit/ food, etc, then I would say "service" for 2 yrs isn't a bad idea. I would have chosen the Peace Corps or Parks Services. I'm not to into the military angle because that should be voluntary and much of it is political and dangerous still for women (rape numbers in the military are still quite high).. Plus, the military basically owns you, can pump any type of shots into you, sends you where ever to fight for whom ever).
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think broad civil service is better than the military, but civil defense training should still be done, just not in a traditional military get up.
Why are you okay with this, I ask because most here see me as Hitler incarnate for suggesting it.
glowing
(12,233 posts)If more Americans were aware of one another in their own country, around the world, and doing basic humanitarian acts, how is it a horrible thing... Now, it should be voluntary, but most kids at 18, with the enticement of travel, money, and school vouchers (and a couple of years of being a "kid/ adult" would suit most 18yr olds.. I would actually offer seniors of age 17 the opportunity to get a head start on the service years (senior year is basically a joke anyway), and perhaps tie their service to college and credits for real life experience? there's nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box and allowing people, especially the youth and our future, to experience life before debt and kids and jobs...
It also may lead to less wars and broader thinking about what types of things work well in other countries that we might want to try here or tweak.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Yeah maybe we should just have a system that heavily incentives it, but I still think people like Charles Rangel have the right idea as well.
MerryBlooms
(12,236 posts)animal shelters, food bank, meals, community gardens, etc... Big Brother/Sister, Peace Corps... but mandatory military doesn't sit well with me. I think service to our community is vital.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Then we agree.