|
On April 04 2013 06:17 BradenKuntz wrote:
During times of war, I think conscription is totally fine. During the World Wars, military service started out as voluntary in Canada, but later conscription was instituted once numbers of volunteers started falling.
For myself personally, I have no plans to enter into our Canadian Military. That being said, if Canada was ever invaded, or our nation under direct threat, I would have no issue signing up. In times of war I think conscription is totally acceptable, and probably a good thing, but during times of peace (I consider now to be a time of peace for most nations in the world) I think it's kind of outdated. There may be minor conflicts here and there, but for the most part (of course there's always exceptions) no nation really needs a massive, war-ready military.
The problem with such a gray area as "times of war" is that definitions of "times of war" will change as policies change.
A strict stance on one or the other is the only way to know for certain where you'll end up. For example, if the US instated a draft during iraq because it was a "time of war" the whole of europe would have laughed at us.
+ Show Spoiler +More than they already did 
|
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.
|
Northern Ireland24393 Posts
You assume I'm all hunky dory with education in this country. Needs root and branch reform, but alas.
I don't need physical and mental fitness improvements, I am an adonis  I don't care for team-building exercises with strangers, done against my will. It might be a beneficial experience, it might be fun, and deeply mentally rewarding but forcing me to do something just doesn't sit well with me.
|
On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.
Exactly, thats how your thinking of it is. It sounds all good if you think of it like that just a year of exercise and some team building.
One other question i have for people is who is gonna pay this? (I will use the US as an example as thats my own country) People already complain about the defense budget and just recently they (attempted?) to revoke the tuition assistance for military education. The US as everyone knows is already having financial problems, it would seem to me trying to train every able bodied male and female between 18-25(?) would just cause more problems.
But for health reasons (Read obesity) i would actually say that the US needs it more than most countries.
|
On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.
If we were discussing a year of physical education classes in a boarding school my objections would be different to those presented here. It is however not 1 year of physical and mental fitness (whatever mental fitness is meant to be in this regard) with team building exercises.
It is 1 year forced in to a military organisation with the understanding that the country owns you and you will be ready to fight later when they demand it of you. It's 1 year of your adult life learning nothing useful, falling behind on what you could have achieved, doing stuff you don't want to do, with people you don't want to be with, in an organisation where serious ethical questions apply under a system which is completely immoral in application.
Edit: I'm not saying people can't get something out of the year though, that's not the objection. Those who want to get something out of it, get training, or spend a year doing that stuff etc should have the opportunity to. The task should be to ensure that they don't fall behind in terms of career and life opportunities compared to those who don't want to do that.
|
I have a question for those whole live in countries when enlistment is mandatory:what happens if you refuse?
I personally follow George Carlin's idea, 'war is poor young men fighting over rich old men's property. Therefore, whatever the reason for a war would be, I refuse going to battle and killing other people. Thankfully, I'm training to be a doctor, and in the worst case scenario I would probably be forced to treat the wounded.
|
On April 04 2013 04:25 TJ31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 03:48 white_horse wrote:On April 03 2013 16:32 TJ31 wrote:On April 03 2013 14:23 EngrishTeacher wrote:
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included. Not really. Not like it's a torture center or something, especially in civil countries. Plus there's multiple ways to cheat (like "being sick" and waste some time in the hospital reading books). My 2 friends didn't changed much after that 1 year. Only thing that changed in 1 year for my friends who served is... now they don't like our government even more. No other changes, they are still good old slackers I know since I was a kid. Yeah, they lost some weight there, but it didn't took too long to get some back. On April 03 2013 15:15 white_horse wrote:On April 03 2013 14:23 EngrishTeacher wrote:
I'm all for a mandatory enlistment time of no longer than 1 year for both sexes.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included. Agreed, partly the reason why mandatory service can be a good thing. It's honestly what you make of the experience (which is true for pretty much everything else too). It's important to maintain a sense of civic duty, and even more important to keep the civilian-military relationship as strong as possible, because that will only leave the country better off. Also, isn't the answer to OP obvious? If you live in a country with a high threat of invasion (ie israel or south korea), it only makes sense to have mandatory service for people in those places. Generalizing mandatory service to be "bad" is pretty ignorant, and that unfortunately seems to be the attitude a lot of people in the thread seem to have. If your country isn't located in a dangerous place and has mandatory service, that is a debate that you should be having with others in your country. Mandatory service can lead to just a few things in my opinion. A cheating and corruption. People who don't want to serve seeking every possible ways to avoid it. I know, I did the same. You can bribe a doctor, you can bribe people in universities, you can bribe someone from military as well. Actually these days in my country, only people who are getting drafted are: Dumbasses like my friends, who didn't planned stuff when they had time. Poor people who can't afford a bribe of 5-8k$. People who actually want to serve. That's it, no one else is going to army here. In fact it's that bad, so there even were thoughts about making those bribes legal. I mean, a man who don't want to go to army no matter what should pay some money to government and that's it, he's free. It was a while ago though. I should also add, that because it's still mandatory here, most of civilians hate the army. Mothers hate it because they are taking their sons. Young women hate it because they take their bfs/husbands. And ofc those who are getting drafted against their will hate it more than anyone. In whole my life I didn't met a single person who weren't in military himself and liked military. So I'm not sure about which civilian-military relationship you're talking about. Well clearly people in your country are immoral and faithless, as well as having an inept government (officials shouldnt be taking bribes). I dont know what country you are from but your suggestion that mandatory service will automatically lead to corruption makes no sense. Uh what? And no one is claiming that one years' worth of service is going to turn every young man into rambo with the discipline of a monk. I'm just saying that there are merits to military service and the people just whining about it instead of trying to see the positives about it just come across as angsty teenagers. I could understand if you live in a country with little potential for conflict with neighbors, but if my country was in constant threat of invasion or potential war, I wouldnt be angry. Yes, maybe they are. Too much has happened in my country for the last ~20 years, so most of people lost faith in it. Country is... the one with vodka, bears and nukes. As for the bribes... It happens everywhere, even in China where the sentence for it is death. It happens in Europe, in USA, everywhere. And yes, it does lead to corruption. I already explained why. People who don't want to lose 1 year of their life for nonthing (let's not argue about that again, from their/my point of view it IS for nothing) willing to spend some money. And just like everywhere, if someone's willing to spend cash, there is something who will gladly take it. In the essence it's like buying 1 year for your life. I'm sure a lot of older guys would've paid much more to get 1 more year. Also I believe people must be able to choose what they want to do with their lifes/time, not someone else. Students don't get drafted, so they can finish university in peace. But after they do, instead of going to some job and getting some practice, they must spend 1 year for something they don't need/want to do. It's whole year man, whole year. Actually it used to be 2 about 6-7 years ago, but they reduced it. Imagine how much money can you make for a year, how many stuff you can try etc. Instead you would be counting days to get home, getting no money and thinking if your gf (if you had one) still waiting for you or not. Well, it's all about same things over and over again, so I'll stop now. And the last, but not least. I still don't believe 99.9% of countries need an army of civilians these days. Professionals should be just fine. In small local conflicts there's no need for a man power, vs terrorists army can't do much too. And if something big will happen, like WW3 (I sure hope it won't happen), it will be all about nukes this time. Nukes and high tech vehicles.
1 Year of your life ? You are talking like the get you inside a cage inhibiting your senses. That's far from the truth. There are positive aspects and there are negative aspects. Yes there is bullshit sometimes, but there are also positive experiences.
Your argument about corruption, you can say the same about everything in life. Money pays for stuff, there is nothing new, and what you are speaking about is a sympton of the underlying problem that is corruption, not corruption itself brought by that system. Or we could talk about "paid" soldiers who pay a doctor to seem unfit of service for a long period of time while still getting his checks at the end of the month.
I agree that if your country doesn't have any hostile neighbour is not really needed, but i also believe many angsty teens or manchilds could use some of the discipline, empathy about who surround him and fly out of under their parent's wings for awhile to be outside of their comfort zone.
|
On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.
if the military would be mental fitness in any shape or form, members of the military wouldnt be on the lower end of the society :/
militaries in all parts of the world are a home for people who dont have access to higher education, be it because they dont have the financial support or are just stupid. in germany its almoste exlusively the latter.
in fact as the government stopped the conscription, one official of the german military said that they already had troubles getting personnal for the higher ranks because only very few germans with the highest degree you can get in school (abitur).
people overestimating the positive influence of the army by far. i mean you are in a group of young men and the last thing what lots of young men of the same age are doing is anything usefull or even slighty responsible. of the three people i call friends who did the MMS, 2 got injured. one broke his leg and he cant remember how because he was drunk as fuck and the other one woke up in a hospital with an alcohol poisoning. the third started to smoke.
thats neither discipline nor healthy and just stupid, but sadly its pretty standard.
oh and from the 2 guys i know who are soldiers, one is overweight :D
|
On April 05 2013 00:23 DreamChaser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine. Exactly, thats how your thinking of it is. It sounds all good if you think of it like that just a year of exercise and some team building. One other question i have for people is who is gonna pay this? (I will use the US as an example as thats my own country) People already complain about the defense budget and just recently they (attempted?) to revoke the tuition assistance for military education. The US as everyone knows is already having financial problems, it would seem to me trying to train every able bodied male and female between 18-25(?) would just cause more problems. But for health reasons (Read obesity) i would actually say that the US needs it more than most countries.
In archaic, pre-Solonian Athens, the concept of citizenship was tightly bound to the ability of the citizen to furnish military duty. During the period of Draconian laws, the ability of the citizen to furnish his own military equipment for service was the major condition of political enfranchisement. Citizens of extraordinary prosperity who could furnish their own horses would be integrated into the cavalry.
The main objection the ancient world had to the maintenance of professional armies had always been political. Whether with the Peisistratids in Athens, or with Hippocrates, the last tyrant of Syracuse, or in the late Roman Republic/Empire, the prevalence of mercenary armies had always been associated with despotic regimes, political instability or both.
The early-American fear of 'standing armies' was derived from the political precepts of Montesquieu, who wrote in the Spirit of the Laws, and in which you can see man of the germs of the 1789 Constitution:
To prevent the executive power from being able to oppress, it is requisite, that the armies, with which it is intrusted, should consist of` the people, and have the same spirit as the people, as was the case at Rome, till the time of Marius. To obtain this end, there are only two ways, either that the persons employed in the army, should have sufficient property to answer for their conduct to their fellow subjects, and be enlisted only for a year, as customary at Rome: Or if there should be a standing army, composed chiefly of the most despicable part of the nation, the legislative power should have a right to disband them as soon as it pleased; the soldiers should live in common with the rest of the people; and no separate camp, barracks, or fortress, should be suffered .
When once an army is established, it ought not to depend immediately on the legislative, but on the executive power, and this from the very nature of` the thing; its business consisting more in action than in deliberation.
From a manner of thinking that prevails amongst mankind, they set a higher value upon courage than timorousness, on activity than prudence, on strength than counsel. Hence, the army will ever despise a senate, and respect their own officers. I hey will naturally slight the orders sent them by a body of` men, whom they look upon as cowards, and therefore unworthy to command them. So that as soon as the army depends on the legislative body, the government becomes a military one; and if the contrary has ever happened, it has been owing to some extraordinary circumstances. It is because the army was always kept divided; it is because it was composed of several bodies, that depended each on their particular province; it is because the capital towns were strong places, defended by their natural situation, and not garrisoned with regular troops. Holland, for instance, is still safer than Venice; she might drown, or starve the revolted troops; for as they are not quartered in towns capable of furnishing them with necessary subsistence, this subsistence is of course precarious.
|
On April 05 2013 00:33 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine. If we were discussing a year of physical education classes in a boarding school my objections would be different to those presented here. It is however not 1 year of physical and mental fitness (whatever mental fitness is meant to be in this regard) with team building exercises. It is 1 year forced in to a military organisation with the understanding that the country owns you and you will be ready to fight later when they demand it of you. It's 1 year of your adult life learning nothing useful, falling behind on what you could have achieved, doing stuff you don't want to do, with people you don't want to be with, in an organisation where serious ethical questions apply under a system which is completely immoral in application. Edit: I'm not saying people can't get something out of the year though, that's not the objection. Those who want to get something out of it, get training, or spend a year doing that stuff etc should have the opportunity to. The task should be to ensure that they don't fall behind in terms of career and life opportunities compared to those who don't want to do that.
I've specifically stated, repeatedly, there's absolutely no expectation to fight later and they cannot demand anything of you but nobody pays any attention it would seem.
Saying that you would learn nothing useful is simply your own biased speculation and I think you overestimate the dramatic effects on peoples lives and careers that delaying employment/further education by 1 year would have (it's basically a gap year, it's not a big deal at all) whilst severely underestimating the potential benefits of such an experience.
|
On April 05 2013 02:05 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 00:33 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine. If we were discussing a year of physical education classes in a boarding school my objections would be different to those presented here. It is however not 1 year of physical and mental fitness (whatever mental fitness is meant to be in this regard) with team building exercises. It is 1 year forced in to a military organisation with the understanding that the country owns you and you will be ready to fight later when they demand it of you. It's 1 year of your adult life learning nothing useful, falling behind on what you could have achieved, doing stuff you don't want to do, with people you don't want to be with, in an organisation where serious ethical questions apply under a system which is completely immoral in application. Edit: I'm not saying people can't get something out of the year though, that's not the objection. Those who want to get something out of it, get training, or spend a year doing that stuff etc should have the opportunity to. The task should be to ensure that they don't fall behind in terms of career and life opportunities compared to those who don't want to do that. I've specifically stated, repeatedly, there's absolutely no expectation to fight later and they cannot demand anything of you but nobody pays any attention it would seem.
It takes but a read through of this thread to disprove that though, regardless of you stating it. Military training (rather than physical training) is military training for a reason. Yes, they can't usually physically force you to fight, but the expectation is you're trained in case they want you to. It's why the arguement of "but our neighbour is aggressive" is used at all.
|
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.
|
On April 05 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this. If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.
If you'd read the thread you will have seen (aswell as my contributing throughout) there are many people pointing out one of the main reasons brought up in support of forced military service is that it means in a country where a potential threat lies on the border that you will have a force already trained. It's been made repeatedly. I'm quite aware that most countries don't yet have a forced conscription also (wait until a war happens, I wonder what they'll do with the trained and not fighting...) but that doesn't in any way address the additional concerns, nor the fact that it is still clearly training to prepare you to fight in future.
Amusingly the quote from yourself, you also include the point where people can fight "if the country is ever in dire need". The expectation is that you will fight, even if the requirement isn't there, as I've said repeatedly.
The arguements about it providing a better society have yet to have any substance behind them, and you have failed to answer the other points raised.
|
On April 05 2013 02:21 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this. If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you. If you'd read the thread you will have seen (aswell as my contributing throughout) there are many people pointing out one of the main reasons brought up in support of forced military service is that it means in a country where a potential threat lies on the border that you will have a force already trained. It's been made repeatedly. I'm quite aware that most countries don't yet have a forced conscription also (wait until a war happens, I wonder what they'll do with the trained and not fighting...) but that doesn't in any way address the additional concerns, nor the fact that it is still clearly training to prepare you to fight in future. Amusingly the quote from yourself, you also include the point where people can fight "if the country is ever in dire need". The expectation is that you will fight, even if the requirement isn't there, as I've said repeatedly. The arguements about it providing a better society have yet to have any substance behind them, and you have failed to answer the other points raised.
Its easy to not want conscription if you're country is not being actively invaded. (I'm not talking about threatened, I'm talking about being actively invaded)
If you're country is invaded people are forced into the choice of surrender or fight. But without that outside force conscription feels (to them) like forcing peaceful people to fight wars for you.
They're not wrong (I'm not certain they're right, although I do see myself as one of them), but it's hard if it's kept as a separate thing from society.
If it was integrated into our everyday life, people would be less philosophically against it. But most conscription literally pull you away from everyday life for training. It's that pulling away that is jarring to people. If all of a sudden the government said "PE should be harder, for better health" people would be like "cool"
That fact that stronger emphasis on physical education helps the military would just be a bonus.
If the government said "we'd like to fund our rocket science programs for space flight" people would be like "cool, more funding for space!" and the fact that it would help with missile technology for the military would be a bonus.
If the military experience pulls people away from society--they will hate it. If the programs enriched society and the military at the same time--everyone wins.
|
On April 05 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 02:21 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 05 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this. If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you. If you'd read the thread you will have seen (aswell as my contributing throughout) there are many people pointing out one of the main reasons brought up in support of forced military service is that it means in a country where a potential threat lies on the border that you will have a force already trained. It's been made repeatedly. I'm quite aware that most countries don't yet have a forced conscription also (wait until a war happens, I wonder what they'll do with the trained and not fighting...) but that doesn't in any way address the additional concerns, nor the fact that it is still clearly training to prepare you to fight in future. Amusingly the quote from yourself, you also include the point where people can fight "if the country is ever in dire need". The expectation is that you will fight, even if the requirement isn't there, as I've said repeatedly. The arguements about it providing a better society have yet to have any substance behind them, and you have failed to answer the other points raised. Its easy to not want conscription if you're country is not being actively invaded. (I'm not talking about threatened, I'm talking about being actively invaded) If you're country is invaded people are forced into the choice of surrender or fight. But without that outside force conscription feels (to them) like forcing peaceful people to fight wars for you. They're not wrong (I'm not certain they're right, although I do see myself as one of them), but it's hard if it's kept as a separate thing from society. If it was integrated into our everyday life, people would be less philosophically against it. But most conscription literally pull you away from everyday life for training. It's that pulling away that is jarring to people. If all of a sudden the government said "PE should be harder, for better health" people would be like "cool" That fact that stronger emphasis on physical education helps the military would just be a bonus. If the government said "we'd like to fund our rocket science programs for space flight" people would be like "cool, more funding for space!" and the fact that it would help with missile technology for the military would be a bonus. If the military experience pulls people away from society--they will hate it. If the programs enriched society and the military at the same time--everyone wins.
I think I'd agree with (and more or less have no issue with) everything you've written there. The key, I think, is to make sure that it's contributing to society and not the other way round (in addition to ensuring no one is forced to join or perform ethically dubious ventures).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
