Would a National Shared Sacrifice end the war?

[ejbrush]

No, I'm not talking about the draft. But it does harken back to WWII, and could end up creating something positive.
GAS RATIONING!!!
Yep, that's right. Here's how my idea works. Everyone gets 5 gallons a week across the board. Based on your driving distance to work and work priority, you might qualify for an extra ration to equal the difference based on a national average of, oh, 25 miles per gallon if you own a car, 16 miles per gallon for trucks/vans required for a particular job. To buy fuel, you need to present a ration card, which would be coded for your allotment. Rationed fuel will be dyed green, if your car's fuel ain't green, big fine.
Now, here's the kicker. The ration allotment would be at a reduced tax rate, maybe tax free. This keeps the working folks getting to work and frees up a little income to buy food, rent, medicine and other frivolous items. Fuel beyond the ration allotment would have a significant tax penalty, say 100% or so. This penalizes those of the upper class who would choose to ignore their duty, which always happens during rationing.
That's my idea - flame away. Just don't dump any gas on it.

[Occulus]

1. I'm gay and I should be exempt from any such program.

Our government has repeatedly told me throughout my adult life that I'm not good enough to get marred or serve openly in our military. For ANYONE to advocate any form a national service is a big fucking slap in the face if I and people like me are not 100% exempt.

For those who disagree: fuck off. National service, for me and people like me, is the equivalent of slavery. We couldn't participate if we WANTED to- until you decide to FORCE us?

Fuck that noise. If you really wanted 100% national service, you should have done more to keep DADT from becoming policy.

These are the same reasons I'm against a draft: I will not allow myself to be forced into an environment in which I could easily be beaten or killed by the very same people I'm serving alongside. And you can't possibly tell me that it wouldn't happen!

I already know it would. ANY form of "national" service will of necessity include those whom the nation has already quite clearly stated are not "fit" to serve. This door swings both ways- now that we're all for some absolutely fucked-up reason advocating (on THIS site, no less), it seems to be forgotten that we've all said "certain people" CAN'T serve.

It just rubs me the wrong way to be denied voluntary military service only to have people tell me I MUST participate in national service- OR a draft.

[ejbrush]

3. You've got a pretty good point there.

If the country doesn't want you voluntarily, you shouldn't be compelled to go involuntarily.

How do you feel about fuel rationing, though?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I've wondered why rationing hasn't been on the table

Of course I'd be willing to sacrifice, if it meant we would be getting out of Iraq and off oil sooner by doing so. My mother told of not only gas rationing, but clothing rationing during WWII--how my great-grandmother gave Mom her shoe coupons so she could keep my brother (then a baby) in shoes. How Gramma saved grease. Ever read any books put out during WWII describing what everyone did as a matter of course? It seems that somehow, somewhere, the idea of sacrificing for a common goal or working for the common good lost its luster. Now it appears more people are interested in only themselves.

[lonestarnot]

4. Gas rat, sea rat whateva. Who's going to implement it, and what about the energy cos bottom line?

[ejbrush]

6. Obviously, it would be implemented by the Congress...

Since they have done such a bang-up job with everything else so far, no need to worry about anything happening any time soon.
Being that fuel would come under federal control with rationing, only a depraved idiot wouldn't include wording that would put a profit cap on rationed fuel (like, say, a Senator or Congresman). Fuel prices remain stable, fuel useage decreases, supplies increase and we could reduce fuel imports.
Decreased national fuel consumption would be of benefit, eh? Even a 5% drop would help.
Besides, once this bit of legislation was slipped into an approprations bill, the Freepers would have a collective conniption. Wouldn't it be a hoot to say "Whaddaya mean you don't like the gas rationing? Our boys and girls in Iraq are giving up a lot more than you." I mean, it'll take something radical to get the idea of true patriotism across to some people.

[lonestarnot]

33. As I see it bushitler is running things, not congress. 700k people protesting in D.C. against the

Vietnam war stopped it. Guess 700k people are not committed enough to get their asses there and leave standing room only in D.C.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Ok I'm sorry but I have to ask:

how exactly does pissing everyone and his mother off with a fake gas rationing program end the war in Iraq?

[ejbrush]

10. Well, people might pay some damned attention to the war for once.

Sorta like a draft, but without killing off the next generation.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Yeah its the same philosophy just a less brutal implementation

The beatings will continue until the attitude improves.

No thanks.

[Initech]

7. Uh... not everybody drives a Prius.

This gas rationing idea would last a whole... two minutes tops.

[ComerPerro]

8. doesn't take a Prius to average 25 mpg

[Initech]

26. Yeah but not everyone can live on 5 gallons a week.

ESPECIALLY if you live in Los Angeles or any place where you require a car for transportation. I'm a courier so I have to rely on my car 100% of the time. If we rationed 5 gallons a week, I'd be fucked.

[ComerPerro]

28. Understood. And that's why the poster mentioned exceptions

EDIT to paste in the passage from the OP

Based on your driving distance to work and work priority, you might qualify for an extra ration to equal the difference based on a national average of, oh, 25 miles per gallon if you own a car, 16 miles per gallon for trucks/vans required for a particular job. To buy fuel, you need to present a ration card, which would be coded for your allotment.


So in theory, if you do 500 miles of work-related driving (commute to and from, company business, etc) each week, you would recieve allowance of 20 gallons on top of your five gallons (500 miles @ 25mpg)

[ejbrush]

13. Well, what would you suggest WE sacrifice?

Beyond our civil liberties, which are being given away pretty damned quick. Gas? Sugar on Tuesdays? Meat/TVP on Fridays (gotta include the vegetarians in this too)? Scrap drives on the first of the month?
My point is this: these imbiciles are bound and determined to drag this war out for the rest of our lives. If the last three years are any indication, it will have precisely zilch for effect on our daily lives until the whole country collapses under debt, unless of course you happen to be one of the relatively few people to have family in service right now. I am. I tell you what, it is a challenge to listen to idiots at work/store/bar/restaurant go on about how this is such a righteous and good thing, when they have got absolutely no skin in the fight.
I still think it's a damned sight better than drafting our kids to die.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Fake Sacrifice for a Fake War!

sounds like a Fake Plan!

[Initech]

22. We sacrifice nothing.

Because that is EXACTLY what the corporate scumfucks and Republican slave drivers want us to do. By sacrificing something, ANYTHING, we are giving into their demands to trade our freedoms for... something, anything. They win. If we live our daily lives exactly as they are, we win. Plain and simple.

[ComerPerro]

9. interesting question, definately. Rationing. One of the biggest problems with this war

is that no one has to sacrifice anything, which is why Republicans keep going on blindly and arrogantly supporting it. Not like they care, they aren't the ones dying

[Warren Stupidity]

12. The reason we had gas rationing in WWII

pay attention:


WE WERE SHORT ON GAS AND NEEDED IT FOR THE WAR


got it?

[ejbrush]

15. The reason we had a draft in WWII

pay attention:


WE WERE SHORT ON MANPOWER AND NEEDED IT FOR THE WAR


got it?


Not some idiotic notion that you'll get the elite to wise up by drafting everyone's kid to go into the meat grinder, which has been forwarded by some in our party. As idiotic proposals go, my idea of us walking a bit more and maybe not attending a gym 35 minutes away from home is a lot less malignant than a draft.
After the war is over, gas goes back to normal. Unlike returning soldiers, who sometimes can't get the care they need and, well, don't.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Yes but you are just imposing pain on people

for the sake of imposing pain on them because you don't like their attitude. I don't know why you don't like the attitude of the general population regarding the war: something like 70% are against it. Perhaps after you finish imposing fake sacrifices on them you can get that down to to 40-50% levels that opposed the Vietnam War. Probably 70% of the population will want to get rid of you and whatever political party you represent though.

[ejbrush]

19. Well, no great harm done,

It was just a little thought exercise anyway. I cetainly don't mean to inflict pain on anyone, which would be a certain outcome of any sort of rationing or draft scenario. If these knuckleheads decide to escalate before '08, though, sheesh, I don't want to even think about that nightmare.
I must address two points, though, out of idle curiosity and nothing else. First, you term the rationing idea a "fake sacrifice." What makes it fake? Two, you referred to it up-post as a "fake war." What part of the war is fake? The premise and lies leading into it are fake, but the dead on both sides are real.
I dunno, I just have this feeling in my gut (which is larger and far more sensitive than Chertoff's)that in the end, when it is over, we'll all be too eager to brush the memories of our errors away and end up doing it all over again ten, twenty, thirty years down the road. Somehow, we have to make it so unpalatable that not 40%, not 70%, but 100% of people would be opposed to ever starting something and would tar and feather any Govt. official that suggests it. Tying overseas adventures to the "home front" just seemed like a tangible way to do it. But I'm open for suggestions.

[ComerPerro]

18. no need to be rude about it. Yes, I understand why they rationed

and if you would use your brain rather than arrogantly lash out, you might be able to think about this.

Why are gas prices so high? Well, according to the oil companies, who swear they aren't gouging, its all a matter of supply and demand. And gas prices have been much higher since, oh, I dunno, 9/11 and the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.

WTF was the point in arrogantly lashing out at me, you tool

[ejbrush]

23. I apoligize if I came across as a bit snippy.

That was not my intent. I do not want to get into a long-distance, anonymous word-fight, which is all too easy in the tubes of the internets. Perhaps I should start using emoticons.
If you took offense to the notion that we should collectively sacrifice because you have served or have sacrificed something valuable already, then you should ask me what I have sacrificed. It is very little. One family member in Iraq for 18 months, came home intact. To call it a sacrifice is to give it more weight than it merits. But now he is back, and I can go weeks without thinking about the war if I were to choose to do so. Many people, even those opposed to the war, choose not to think about it.
I certainly did not intent to for the notion of rationing to strike so deep with anyone. It was a brief thought that I had and I figured I would toss it out for general consumption. It ain't aimed at punishing people, it ain't aimed at saving the environment, it ain't aimed at lowering gas prices. It was simply a notion that we are all affected by this war, and I sometimes wonder if everyone gets that point. Yes, 70% polled are opposed to the war. How many of that 70% do one damned thing after they hang up the phone or finish the questionaire? People here at the DU, probably quite a few. Out in the rest of the world, I dunno. Not enough at any rate. If it were, the war would be over.
Please accept the apolgy of a tool for unnecessarily riling up anyone.

Now, to rile you up again...
BTW, supply and demand dictates that a decrease in demand creates excess supply, so by rationing fuel and reducing consumption (demand), supply increases, driving costs down.
BTBTW, as to Oil companies swearing that they aren't gouging, If an oil exec. told me that the sky was blue, I'd take a loooong time to stare at it before being sure it ain't actually orange.

[ComerPerro]

Uh... Thanks for the apology, but you have no reason to apologize to me

I was addressing the other poster, the one who decided to lecture me on "why we had rationing"

I personally think you might have the beginnings of a good idea, and it is certainly worth discussing.

[ejbrush]

25. Well, you know how the world looks through a computer screen.

Sometimes it's hard to keep track of whose snipe is whose.

[ComerPerro]

27. I even doublechecked my post after reading yours to make sure I didn't acidentally tell you off

I just wish more people would have taken your idea seriously. Its not like you're asking them to sacrifice that much.

You would think a plea for conservation of resources would go over well on a supposedly progressive board...

[Mutineer]

17. It didn't work during the Vietnam era.

If you had money you could exploit the loopholes.

[rucky]

20. Let's give big oil a spanking, first.

put the hammer down on price fixing and gouging. quit giving them tax breaks. focus on renewables: note to Exxon - adapt or perish.

[pscot]

21. Absolutely

I believe we should throw George Bush and Dick Cheney into a volcano. This would propitiate the gods and lift the curse that has descended on our once great nation. The troops would come home, the markets would rally and peace, love and understanding would reign.

[Initech]

24. Now THAT is a sacrifice I can get behind!

[ejbrush]

29. I don't think that will work.

As I understand, those two are from Texas and Wyoming. I was under the impression that soothing the gods required Virginians.

[pscot]

30. Only female sacrifices have to be Virginians

We tie a note to our sacrifice, explaining to the gods that one of these schmucks is a king, and it's up to them to sort out which one it is. Trust me on this. The gods love puzzles. If you still think we need a Virginian we could always throw in George Allen, but I don't think the gods would like him very much. They hate assholes just as much as we do.

[EFerrari]

31. No. Holding the lying mofos in our government accountable would end the war.

Why on Earth should we sacrifice anything else for Halliburton?

This wasn't a war, this was a corporate takeover.

Edit: This "war" was never a war, never about our security. It was always about the oligarchy doing business and in particular, about Dick Cheney's Halliburton asbestos problem.

Sacrifice, my remote.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.