National Service Poll

[Mythsaje]

Since this argument has been going around and around for the last week or so, I'd like to some kind of survey out there to determine exactly how many DUers support this sort of thing.

I've already announced my disapproval of the idea, and explained my reasons.

How about the rest of you?

[niallmac]

1. I am for some counter to military service.

Paid education/ A promise at least of lifetime health care/community recognition...
Well deserved all but can't we place a similiar value on a commitment to rebuilding
a nation that has suffered from years of exploitation from captalism? Or would
this be a threat to those Halliburton contracts?

[EdwardM]

2. No.

It is the role of the government to serve the people, not the other way around.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Government needs to be done by the people... not the corporate lackeys nt

[EdwardM]

4. well if we have forced national service, you can bet damn well the corporate lackeys will..

stick their nose in the program, and get some cheap labor out of it.

[TahitiNut]

7. It cannot be "for the people" UNLESS it's "Of the people and by the people"!!!

Period. :shrug:

[EdwardM]

8. You seem to be so caught up on theory, that you miss the reality of such a program would really run.

[TahitiNut]

10. You seem totally incapable of discussion without attacking the messenger.

What's worse ... you don't even seem to comprehend the difference.

[EdwardM]

11. you attacked me several times in some previous threads.

I believe you called me selfish and even said I am "conservative." And that wasn't meant to be a personal attack, I didn't call you a name. I'm just attacking the position you hold. There's a big difference.

[TahitiNut]

12. Wrong. The foo shit. You wore it.

Again, you show no comprehension in your posts.

"Waaah!! Sally did it first, mommy!" Infantile.

[EdwardM]

13. What?

[EdwardM]

14. No thats not my argument.

I have not once personally attacked you. Show me one instance where I have. You have called me "selfish" though. I consider that a personal attack.

[TahitiNut]

17. Post #8 -- Q.E.D.

Like I say, you don't demonstrate a comprehension of the difference between "attacking the message" and "attacking the messenger."

[EdwardM]

18. You really think that's a personal attack?

I don't know what to say about that.

[TahitiNut]

19. (LOL!) Q.E.D.

:rofl:

[EdwardM]

20. Have fun.

and by the way, math sucks!

[Warren Stupidity]

16. And enforced at gunpoint. Feh. Blechh.

[TahitiNut]

21. For exactly the same reason people are "forced at gunpoint" to keep from robbing banks.

How many people would take out more than they deposit if not "forced at gunpoint"???
Clue: Just count the "no service for me!" posts.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Er no.

Robbing banks is a voluntary action that one is prevented from doing at gunpoint. Conscription is an involuntary action that one is compelled to do at gunpoint. Taxes are a better analogy, however I am not deprived of my liberty by the tyranny of the tax system (unless I refuse to pay) merely my money.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

5. my generation of Norwegian relatives

all were required to give two years of service to Norway - in education, the medical field or the military.

Growing up in the "Me Generation" (tail end of baby boom - and the 'tweeners' generation) - I often have wondered if my generation would have benefited from such a program. Would we have a greater sense of community (as in concern for other people in other parts of the country)? Would we have a slightly bigger picture understanding of issues, rather than being prone to barely listen to news and believe whatever drivel superficial and biased sources such as Faux put in the airwaves? Would we have so quickly tried to out buy/spend our parents in terms of demonstrating our "standard of living"? I really don't know.

I think that having relatives who participated in national service - the idea seems rather natural and not foreign to me - even when i was at the age they were when doing service. They all are now prosperous, have families and are doing quite well. Most have or are getting professional degrees - and in some cases the years of service opened doors to careers/professions (for those who were not yet certain "what they wanted to be when the grow up.")

[TahitiNut]

9. As another with Norwegian relatives, I believe it is one of the reasons

... Norway is almost ALL 'middle class' with one of the lowest Gini Ratios in the world, low unemployment, high education, high per capita GDP, low corruption, and long life-span.

[salin]

15. for the first time in thirty years

I was able to go back this past summer. With one exception in Hamar, and one in Bergen - I saw no grafitti - and that which was seen was related to the World Cup that was going on.

I would venture to guess that there is truth to your comment. Interestingly enough this was not always the case (in terms of wealth) - Norway was not terribly prosperous before the War, and was devastated after the war. If you get the chance to visit the 'War resistance museum' in Oslo - do it (also stop by the Nobel Peace museum!) - getting a glimpse of life under occupation - and the very widespread forms of resistance (and how many came together to support the resistance) is very eye opening. I wouldn't be surprised if the roots of the tradition of national service were sowed at that time (not just to prevent future occupation - but also the way communities worked together to survive - and thus the goals of national service going beyond military service).

Per the economy - to be fair, I think the North Sea oil also has something to do with the high standard of living.

[TahitiNut]

28. Even before the North Sea oil, the number of people in poverty was very low.

I sometimes attribute the cultural attitude of cooperation to the climate ... people don't do well in such a climate unless they're cooperative, imho. Before all the gas-guzzling snow-blowers and plowing services, I saw a lot of that same kind of attitude as a kid when neighborhoods would pitch in together to clear the snow and bank their furnaces. It's really a myth that "rugged individualism" prevails over communitarian values, imho.

[salin]

30. I would agree,

perhaps our Scandnavian roots similarly effect us - though I would have to say that my father, with no Scandnavian roots, also embodied such principles. I have to sign off soon for the week. It is always great to see you. It is too bad that we "met" when we no longer lived - probably within 15 minutes of one another - and could have easily found time to share a cup of coffee or tea. Now we have both left the Bay area and are quagmired (so to speak) in the midwest. That twenty minutes is probably closer to 4-8 hours - but maybe someday we will be fortunate enough to cross paths.

[TahitiNut]

31. I'd have liked that. A lot, I think.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. As long as it's voluntary, it's fine with me.

Which would mean I voted no.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. I'm the only vote for 'military draft'

It's really the only answer.

[OhioChick]

23. Hell No! n/t

[rosesaylavee]

26. No.

There's too much govt as it is. We don't need the govt telling us, at any age, how to be one way or the other. A draft is too much interfering. We have Americorp, Peacecorp and the military draft for those that feel compelled to join up.

Is this ageism? I would like one of these polls to also include what specific age groups think this is a good thing.

Just. No.

[NJ Democrats]

29. Mandatory Civil Service!?

Are you kidding me. You could get more kids to protest that than the protest anything that we'd protest. And I myself am too lazy to do anything like that as good as it might be. So I'm going to oppose the idea, and I'm sure every else who is affected by an idea would also oppese it

[TahitiNut]

32. Interesting.

What's also interesting is that anyone under about 40 probably has no idea how the draft worked in those days. It wasn't just an "all you can eat" buffet for the military cannibals. Congress had to authorize the levels of conscription. Congress had to authorize the spending, too. Still does.

There were more men drafted the year I was born than during the entire Viet Nam War.

WWI: (Sept. 1917-Nov. 1918) .... 2,810,296 (draftees were 78% of those inducted)
WWII: (Nov. 1940-Oct. 1946) ... 10,110,104 ('volunteers' were about 6.2 million)
Korea: (June 1950-June 1953) ... 1,529,539
Vietnam: (Aug 1964- Feb 1973) .. 1,857,304

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken in October 2003 indicated that 80 percent of all people (88 percent of people 18-29) opposed a return to the draft. Only 17 percent said they supported a draft, which was down from 27 percent just prior to the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon is very aware that in such a climate of opposition, the draft would produce a backlash, especially in high schools and colleges, that could greatly undermine the support it has struggled to recover over the last three decades. It would require a very serious crisis before the risk would seem worth it to the military leadership.

http://www.warresisters.org/nva0504-3.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. What I find interseting is the split

I suspect the split also mateches age and experience

By the way I am at the border of that age you posted... but I'm still aware how it worked. It was explained in detail by both profesors and relatives who went through it