EPTIs Mandatory Military Enlistment still needed? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 02 2013 10:55 Epishade wrote: I really only think mandatory military enlistment is needed in 2 situations: If your country is in a dangerous area/is in threat of being attacked, and if your country is currently under attack. I don't think mms should be used for offensive purposes, only defensive and only when direly needed. Actually--this true for everyone. What isn't true for everyone is how "dire" and "in danger" any given nation is at any given time. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
I am against mandatory services since for some people its a totally waste of time. Maybe for some countries they need that to protect themselves( North/South Korea come to mind) I do support military service for people that have nothing better to do, it brings down the social problems and open a new path for lots of people. | ||
|
michaelthe
United States359 Posts
So when you get comments like this: On April 02 2013 10:09 Velinath wrote: I'm very against military service in general, be it mandatory or not - especially when I don't agree with the conflict-ideals of the country I live in. They don't really add anything. Although my point is that almost all of the comments are out of context. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
For example, if the United States were invaded, our defense would be a morally justifiable war. There would be 10 million volunteers by the next morning. No draft would be needed. If the United States were to invade Europe, virtually no one would volunteer, and a draft would be undesirable. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On April 02 2013 16:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote: It shouldn't really be needed in this modern era anymore unless some sort of extraterrestrial threat appears that necessitates it.. But hen the whole world would simply look at the US and expect it to kamikaze a couple of fighter jets into the alien aircraft and rid the world of the allien invaders. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
An army can respond against natural disasters or just civil emergencies in general. You need something or someone to guard your boarders and make sure that your arbitrary rules are enforced. Without this you end up with other nations abusing your lack of guards as a free pass. Having UN / NATO alliances is not a guarantee that nobody will ever invade your country. Not even nuclear weapons are a 100% guarantee because you cannot defend yourself by committing suicide (the deterrence it offers is a fake one). Conscription roots the army with the people they are supposed to defend and pulls from both higher born and lower born. It teaches them about the world we live in. (A global anarchy of states with a few bigger ones bullying the smaller ones). Some youtube stuff. Europe conscription crisis: Yes Minister has relevant satire. Professional armies means ageing soldiers and a military that cannot defend their nations for more than a day. Conscription informs the public and keeps them invested in the nation's well being, it gives those finishing it a useful attitude, and complementary skills. While the people trying to run away from it cringe to our politicians I'd like to believe it is an eye opener for the youths affected by it. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Let's not beat around the bush, mandatory service is tantamount to slavery. Whether that's a policy worth adopting is up to the regime, which will eventually have to answer to its citizens. I don't think there is a very persuasive argument for forced service in the name of improving fitness or discipline or patriotism among young men on an ongoing basis. | ||
|
Aphasie
Norway474 Posts
Not many womend can lift their 20-30 kilo back-pack to shoulder height or higher to get it onto a truck or something like that Not many womend can carry 20-40 kilo artillery ammuniton Not many women can carry a wounded fellow soldier out of combat Not many women have the stamina to hoof around with with 30 kilos of equipment used for regular patrols. And there's also the fact that women break down way more often than men under extreme pressure situations (read: War) while males usually deal with it later (and develop PTSS and things of the sort) Dont get me wrong, if women meet an objective standard of strenght measurement (i. e. not body-weight related like pull-ups, push-ups, etc.) I think they should be allowed to enter. However it's a basic fact that the average female isnt strong enough for most positions in the current modern army. To illustrate my point Ill tell you about a girl I served my MMS with. This girl was tough as nails, unlike the other girls I served with she didnt bitch and whine and did her job properly. I never heard a single complaint from her. She dreamt about serving in Afghanistan and worked hard towards that goal. However she couldn't escape the fact that she was about 1.55m and weighed about 45 kilos. Obviously she never made the cut for those that went. my 2 cents | ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1964 Posts
On April 02 2013 05:39 Brawny wrote: Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though. Yeah, but the United States wasn't actually defending itself during the Vietnam War, they were just fighting communists in Vietnam. If a country was actually under attack a draft would be received way better because the threat is clearly visible and is a threat to the individual. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On April 02 2013 17:09 Just_a_Moth wrote: Yeah, but the United States wasn't actually defending itself during the Vietnam War, they were just fighting communists in Vietnam. If a country was actually under attack a draft would be received way better because the threat is clearly visible and is a threat to the individual. If the draft is well received there's no fricken need for it! | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On April 02 2013 16:54 Aphasie wrote: I wonder how many of the people here that say male only conscription is sexist, that actually have any experience with girls in the military. Fact of the matter is that most women dont have the physique to be in the military. Example; Not many womend can lift their 20-30 kilo back-pack to shoulder height or higher to get it onto a truck or something like that Not many womend can carry 20-40 kilo artillery ammuniton Not many women can carry a wounded fellow soldier out of combat Not many women have the stamina to hoof around with with 30 kilos of equipment used for regular patrols. And there's also the fact that women break down way more often than men under extreme pressure situations (read: War) while males usually deal with it later (and develop PTSS and things of the sort) Dont get me wrong, if women meet an objective standard of strenght measurement (i. e. not body-weight related like pull-ups, push-ups, etc.) I think they should be allowed to enter. However it's a basic fact that the average female isnt strong enough for most positions in the current modern army. To illustrate my point Ill tell you about a girl I served my MMS with. This girl was tough as nails, unlike the other girls I served with she didnt bitch and whine and did her job properly. I never heard a single complaint from her. She dreamt about serving in Afghanistan and worked hard towards that goal. However she couldn't escape the fact that she was about 1.55m and weighed about 45 kilos. Obviously she never made the cut for those that went. my 2 cents Exactly my thoughts, the military needs more horses, they can carry so much more artillery ammunition and have the stamina to hoof around with 200 kilos of equipment O_o Admittedly, I don't understand much about the requirements of the "modern" military, but why should everyone have to fulfill the same tasks in a unit? Why shouldn't there be specialists that have different abilities than the normal grunt? It's not like a country like Norway beats the enemy with sheer numbers and can't afford non-standardized equipment! | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
Historically, they never have - but they have been quite content to see the poor and the marginalized fight their wars. | ||
|
Rescawen
Finland1028 Posts
| ||
|
yamtaro
Australia14 Posts
Personally I believe military service should be compulsory for the following reasons: Obviously exceptions would need to be made and only physically and mentally fit people would be recruited. Having compulsory service means that many more people cycle through the forces and training and your country is able to have a much larger force at any one time with the people currently serving than in countries where service is voluntary. In addition do this you're able to lower the minimum term of service creating a sort of gap year style or even 6 month style program with the military means that people are able to get the training and and leave with relatively little impact on their lives, this means that the people benefit from military discipline and the country benefits by having a great many more citizens who are military trained, this when supplemented with yearly training to keep general skills up would mean that the core permanent army and its budget would be able to be kept reasonably small while the fighting capability of the country would be quite strong. By doing this and having most of the country in a form of "reservist" training cycle would alleviate a lot of the tedium usually experienced by full time soldiers keeping training interesting and rewarding. In addition to this the compulsory training could be used as a pathway into the other government agencies with military doctors/nurses moving into those fields and the other corps having the opportunity to undergo additional training then moving into the regular police force or fire dept. On a personal note I look back on my infantry experience as a positive thing, while I did not overly enjoy my job and I can think of some pretty negative experiences, I gained an awful lot from my time in the service and so my personal bias is towards service on the whole. | ||
|
TJ31
630 Posts
Two of my friends had to spend 1 year there. Both learned nothing at all, because... well, not like if they wouldn't pass some "exam" or test anything would've changed, one year is still one year no matter what. Oh yeah, they learned how to wash floors better and run 20kms without stops. Sure that will help them in their life (they both are programmers now). In my opinion most part of the army should be professional soldiers with contracts. It's their job, so they will be useful when/if the time comes for some "action". Unlike people who never wanted to be in army and never learnt anything. But there also should be some part for "patriots", who are not professionals, but still want to serve their country for some time and maybe become professional soldiers later. As for myself, I've skipped military completely. Students can't be drafted (or at least couldn't been when I was at that age), so after I finished university, I went to another one and just waited untill I was out of the draft's age. Had to pay some good cash to some people, because I actually never had intentions or time to finish 2nd university. (means I was a student just on paper). It it wrong and anti patriotic? Maybe. Do I care? Not at all. I saved 1 year of my life (a year from the better part of the life I should say) and I "saved" a lot of money, because 1 year in military means no money/no job. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
 There shouldn't be a profession in which you kill people, and it shouldn't be voluntary. If you gonna wage wars it should be important enough that you are willing and able to force people to do it. | ||
| ||
