And TubaDiva delivers this thread the coup de grace by bringing up the Nazi Holocaust. R.I.P.
No C&P – but a comment on some of what just went on above me.
I will say this much: the service is much pickier than it used to be . . .but they want more than just cannon fodder these days too, and so they’re more discriminating.
When I was in high school, I did well enough on the placement tests that I had recruiters camped out on my doorstep, literally. (Also, I played euphonium, apparently there was a desperate shortage of female euphonium players.) They promised me the sun, the moon, and the stars . . .my academic record was not particularly shining, but that didn’t matter. . . I had very little to recommend me, really; I was your average 18 year old messed up kid. And Uncle Sam wanted me. BAD.
Today, that kid wouldn’t get five seconds of any recruiters time, even if they are still short of euphoniums.
your humble TubaDiva
“And you win an all expense paid trip to Ft. Rucker, Alabama . . .”
43rd Law of Computing:Anything that can go wr {segmentation fault}
Gee, Boris, what did I do to rate such a comment? And my name in bold, too, you must really love me.
I note that just before I said “death camps” I said "Not to bring in outside issues . . . " I was making a point. It’s still okay to do that, I assume?
your humble TubaDiva
who still thinks mandatory service is a pretty good idea. (Now see, I’m back on topic!)
43rd Law of Computing:Anything that can go wr {segmentation fault}
No, Boris; you did not mekae a self-deprecationg remark. What you did was use the term “example” and then follow that with rumours. That is not example.
In short that is lies.
You don’t like the way that comes across, then tough.
Yet it is still a fact that rumour is not example of fact.
BTW, Boris; just so’s you know that I am familiar with a dictionary:
(From Merriam-Webster)
[quote]
ru*mor [1] (noun)
[Middle English rumour, from Middle French, from Latin rumor clamor, gossip; akin to Old English reon to lament, Sanskrit rauti he roars]
First appeared 14th Century
1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
3 archaic : talk or report of a notable person or event
4 : a soft low indistinct sound : MURMUR
[quote]
I invite your attention to the second definition.
Tatertot:
Some may consider this to be a matter of semantics, but your description of the “payments” involved for the Montgomery GI Bill is a bit off.
The way it works is that the Service member agrees to a monthly pay reduced by 100 dollars for one year. That’s why it’s considered to be non-contributory (the VEAP was a contributory program) and the Service member does not pay taxes on that $100 nor can he or she reclaim the cash as is possible under the VEAP if the Service member decides not to use the benefits.
Under VEAP, the taxes were on the entire base pay (plus other pays received) and then the Service member made a contribution. If the Service member decides not to use a benefit, the entire contribution is refunded without any taxation as the cash was already taxed.
RoboDude, the Constitution says a lot of things, even if it doesn’t say what you said,
there isn’t much enforcement of what the Constitution says.
For example, someone called the cops on me for making too much noise. I ask the officer who called? The cops won’t say. I say, ‘but the Constitution [or whatever it is] says we have the right to confront our accuser!’
Cop,‘No, we don’t have to tell you who called.’
Try it yourself. You’d be surprised.
Handy…the right to confront is, IIRC, “in a court of law.” Doesn’t mean that because someone makes a complaint, the complainer is obliged to appear when and where the complained-against chooses to confront him, or even that the cops have to tell you who then and there.
On the other foot, there is a specific provision of the U.S. Code, and has been for numerous years, that makes it a crime to “withhold from a person a right secured to them by the Constitution.” (Paging a lawyer for cite and more detail on this.)
Soon after I completed by B.Sc. degree in Computer Science I was contacted by an Army recruiter. And even though I never considered the job of attacking minor nations in order to help increase wealth of corporate America to be a rewarding career, I’ve always had romantic ideas of defending my country’s freedoms against invading, evil empires. Too many GI Joe episodes as a child I suppose. But, I decided to set up an appointment for the amusement at least.
Well after my initial visit with the Sgt., I’ve never thought much about joining the Army again. Even though I scored extremely high on their placement exams and was able to follow any of their career paths, I found the whole recruitment process ridiculous. Mainly my problem was with the 3-4 page health and conduct form I was required to file. Not only were the questions sometimes picky and irrelevant (Are you allergic to dust?, Have you ever had a broken bone?, Have you ever had consoling?), but I was informed that if I marked any question as yes, I’d be ineligible. What really insulted me was the recruiter’s persistence that I lie just to pass the screening. Talk about dishonorable conduct.
Then of course were the salaries, which were half as much as I’d get paid in the private sector for mediocre work.
To answer the original thought though, I think that some mandatory military service is a great idea, and I’m a Liberal, too. Of course I’d never accept any military service that required duty outside of the country or a non-defensive nature.
Aaron: if the recruiter did, in fact, insist you lie on the application for enlistment, then you should’ve reported him to the military authorities over him. Such insistence on the recruiter’s part is a crime and is punishable as such.
:::inviting, nay, welcoming the flames that are sure to occur:::
I was in the Army during Viet Nam. My draft number was 18. I hated every putrid, fucking second of it.
With that said, I don’t think a person should be able to vote until that person has completed two years of some type of national service.
What’d ya think, democracy is free? It was earned.
" <— My own personal quote. I call him Doug.
One radical idea would be to make it mandatory for anyone with aspirations of high office (High does not include state representatives/senators/etc. but would include governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, US senator or representative, Sec Defense/or any of the services, and of course PotUS/CinC, or VP).
Impractical, unenforceable, yes…but it would give these guys a little real world education & get them out of their frats, secret societies, etc for a little while.
We’re actually going through a radical shift right noe from an era in which our political leaders had by & large served in WW2 because it was the honorable thing to do, and entering an era where most sons of the privileged class from whence come our leaders are protected from having to perticipate in the service, or if they do serve, doing service “lite” a la DQ.
What would make this even more crazy & unworkable in today’s climate would be applying this same requirement to women entering the political arena…
But it’s an interesting idea to kick around, all the same.
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html
I really don’t have a problem with making military service mandatory. We’ve all benefited from being Americans and I feel obligated to give something back. My biggest concern is how to make such a system fair for everybody. I believe Boris B made the point that if we conscripted every young person we’d have far too many troops. A lottery might work, but it just feels too unfair. Mandatory community service is another option, but how would we pay for it? And how to prevent richer and better connected families from getting their children the best jobs? I believe this is a problem in the South Korean army. The conscripts with wealthy families (using bribes or influence) get the safer, cushier assignments while the poorer recruits get the dangerous and tedious jobs.
Also, I am not at all opposed to women doing their service, but how would we deal with young single mothers? Would they have to join, too? There are single parents in the military, but they are their by choice and it is very difficult to manage.
I bounced around the idea of making military service mandatory for receiving financial aid for college, but it too just doesn’t feel fair. Under that plan, my husband would have had to serve and I would have been exempt. NOT very fair at all, I’d say.
In the end, it seems like the only answer is to make military service more attractive to both new recruits and those already enlisted. Better pay would help, along with better benefits and more respect from the civilian world.
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” Albert Einstein
In Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, to be a citizen, one has to volunteer for ‘federal service’ which translates to service in the combined armed forces of the time. This gives you the right to vote, hold office, etc. There is some discussion in the novel of the rationale behind this idea.
Tubadiva said:
In which case, maybe we deserve to lose.
Think about it. If enough people aren’t willing to defend their country, then maybe the country isn’t worth defending. If we have to take away freedom to fight for freedom, what are we really doing?
Only if moderating the SDMB counts as community service (though sometimes I think it qualifies for hazardous duty pay).
Seriously, though, while some legal beagles have pointed out that the courts don’t consider a draft to be slavery, I fail to see much difference. The government is going to take away my freedom for a couple years? Sorry, but I’d fight that just as much as I’d fight any other threat to freedom.
Here is an idea, on the matter of what to do with all those conscript soldiers, were we to return to the use of the draft, in peacetime.
The federal military could be organized to provide support for civilian emergency services. The training of recruits could be made a part of a coordinated emergency labor pool. The training needs of the military (which include mostly learning how to get a whole lot of people to a distant place in a short time) would be served with the same budget dollars as the implementation of federal emergency services.
Here is how it would work. Federal forces would maintain training facilities, as they do now, albeit much larger. The exclusively military aspects of such training would be unchanged. General training, such things as major force movements, building of temporary encampments, delivery of materials for such things, and the simple, but difficult skills of teamwork on a division sized scale, would be made into a civilian operation, under the direction of some civilian agency, such as FEMA.
Military intelligence (as a part of it’s training) would provide to this agency, immediate, and ongoing communication services, informing it of all disaster information on a worldwide scale. Federal emergency teams could be dispatched rapidly, operated more efficiently, and respond much more effectively. The cost would be huge. The benefit would be manifold. Our logistical expertise would be a tremendous benefit to the modern military need for rapid response and deployment of military forces, but the regular exercise of armed forces would not be needed as often. The relief of suffering would also provide a lot of public support of the presence of civilian logistic supports in many areas where our armed forces might not be welcome.
In the eventual case where military forces were needed, the infrastructure would already exist, and the pool of experienced operational personnel would exist as well. To pretend that the ability to defend ourselves in the military sense of large standing forces cannot occur is probably short sighted. To accept the ongoing support of an institution with no other purpose than preparing for war is not the only answer.
TrisOne minor cavil with DSYoung’s post: those with the franchise in the Heinlein novel were veterans who had served their term after volunteering. But not necessarily military veterans. You volunteered for public service. The authorities, after testing, decided whether you were cannon fodder, Peace Corps material, or needed to be put through engineering school at public expense. If you volunteered, whatever you got assigned to, you did. You had the free choice to volunteer or not. But you had no choice afterwards, except to resign (at any time except during combat). The hitch was that if you resigned, you forfeited your chance at the franchise.
Was it a good idea? Pretty much, yes, for the reasons TubaDiva has already given for why patriotism implies military service. Did it have its faults? Certainly, and I can see posters lining up two deep to argue them. But on balance, it made sense.
Tris:
The military in the United STates does currently assist in civilian emergencies and certain law enforcement actions.
That is, if you consider the National Guard to be part of the military, as I do consider it and so does the law.
“The military in the United STates does currently assist in civilian emergencies and certain law enforcement actions”
The proposal I outlined is a bit more involved than the current involvement of the National Guard in local disaster relief. At the same time, involvement in law enforcement is an entirely different matter, one which I find alarming.
<p align=“center”>Tris</p>
Tis: I bet you’re alarmed by the main mission of the United States Coast Guard, then.