Poll: Conscription - Your Thoughts
- Thread starter chaosfenrir
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe that an issue like this depends a lot on your circumstance and view of the military. There are a lot of people that stigmatize the army based on the presumption that its all about killing and murder. Many forget that the military is also the foundation for many humanitarian efforts, and also do much of the research and development that make civilian life better. I don't think any of us would be having this discussion without the internet, which from what I've heard was first developed by the military.
Ones upbringing also has effects. One can be raised to hate their government, and thus feel that joining or being conscripted, is nothing more then submitting oneself to becoming a mindless drone to the wealthy elite that lords over them. One can also be brought up with a certain sense of civic duty and pride, and thus feel honored to serve ones nation. To some its a choice of convenience, perhaps the structure, discipline, training and camaraderie appeal to them and they also enjoy three squares and a bed to sleep in.
You can look at it as simply being another level of required education in your country. The one thing that did strike me was the fact that essentially you were saying that men had to wait two extra years before attending university, and that struck me as unfair. There is no reason an individual couldn't postpone their service until they had their education, or couldn't get it while they served...
Ones upbringing also has effects. One can be raised to hate their government, and thus feel that joining or being conscripted, is nothing more then submitting oneself to becoming a mindless drone to the wealthy elite that lords over them. One can also be brought up with a certain sense of civic duty and pride, and thus feel honored to serve ones nation. To some its a choice of convenience, perhaps the structure, discipline, training and camaraderie appeal to them and they also enjoy three squares and a bed to sleep in.
You can look at it as simply being another level of required education in your country. The one thing that did strike me was the fact that essentially you were saying that men had to wait two extra years before attending university, and that struck me as unfair. There is no reason an individual couldn't postpone their service until they had their education, or couldn't get it while they served...
i dont agree with that, even as a conscript one would gain the love and the civic responsibility to fight for his country, they are making them go, but, i think they first teach them they should love their country...fix-the-spade said:
if not, they are screwed (also, some stigmas like being a "traitor" and such make someone review their ideas)
i would not complain,i think its an excelent idea to give something to your country, specially if you are surrounded by people that might be envious of your assets, as our friends in the US have thaught us, Protect what you, your family and your country believes in, or succumb to the comies!!! (the last par was a joke ok!?, Jesus people)
A consripts motivation should be provided by national pride, fear of the enemy and the wanting to protect their country and property, conscripts are not somehow weaker than a voulenteer because they did not voulenteer, givin the proper training and equipment as their voulenteer counter-parts, the only difference is motivation.
If you are the invading country then its another matter and motivation will be much harder, but defending a country will have no problem in motivating such a force, Ireland for example were it to need defending and required consripts would have no problem in motivation considering the national pride in many people in the country for obvious reasons.
they are an effective force if trained correctly and not treated like they are somehow inferior due to being consripts.
If you are the invading country then its another matter and motivation will be much harder, but defending a country will have no problem in motivating such a force, Ireland for example were it to need defending and required consripts would have no problem in motivation considering the national pride in many people in the country for obvious reasons.
they are an effective force if trained correctly and not treated like they are somehow inferior due to being consripts.
The level of morale in a conscript army is usually lower, but it's not always that low, and it's not often less than required. For example, WW1 wherein every army began as a conscript army (excepting Britain, which later turned to exactly that). The conscripts of these armies lasted around 2-4 years in the worst meat-grinders in military history before serious dissent ever reared its head - and then it was less due to time or the conscript nature of the army as that casualty rates for combat units had hit 100% or over (a rough guide to when the army revolted in some form). At that point, soldiers were just exhausted by all the death, and a disproportionate number of the dead were the bravest who wouldn't have revolted. The only exception to this was the Germans, who held out the longest and beyond that casualty rate, probably because they were fed on a diet of victory throughout the war. Moreover, Napoleon's Grand Armee was a conscript army - and no one would claim that wasn't a well-oiled machine.
People looking at Vietnam have turned a special lesson in conscription's use into a general one. Conscript armies aren't necessarily bad or cowardly; they just aren't good or brave when the citizens (and thus the soldiers) don't believe in the cause. Professionals are more likely to suck it up (because they're a bit more patriotic than the average joe).
There are trade-offs involved in any military system. A professional army, conscription, citizen militia, mercenaries - all of them have their pros and cons. For example, a professional army is well-trained; but it is also a powerful force that is essentially disconnected from the citizenry. You only have to look around the world, or at history, to see dozens of examples of professional armies that launched a coup on government. This usually happens when a soldiery is less loyal to its system of government than its military leaders. Professional armies, therefore, are death sentences to countries with weak governments, little civic feeling and constant land war. Britain, America, Canada and Australia have managed to keep professional armies on a politically tight leash because of a sense of patriotism which trumped loyalty to military; and because none of them have suffered especially long periods of sporadic wars since the inception of professional armies - a destabilising effect that creates a greater love for the military than usual. (When foreign armies are marching across your borders every few decades wouldn't you value the military a bit more?)
The costs of conscription are quite costly though. They can include low morale and training but not necessarily. They do include a massive drain on the economy of a country, such that in a long drawn out war the conscript powers will collapse. This is the lesson the world only learned in World War 1. Before then, Europe had looked at Napoleon's success and concluded that conscription was the solution to the problems that had dogged the other systems. When WW1 came around, though, it was seen what escalation would do: a long struggle that drained a country until total collapse (Germany, and not Britain or France by luck and the Lusitania).
People looking at Vietnam have turned a special lesson in conscription's use into a general one. Conscript armies aren't necessarily bad or cowardly; they just aren't good or brave when the citizens (and thus the soldiers) don't believe in the cause. Professionals are more likely to suck it up (because they're a bit more patriotic than the average joe).
There are trade-offs involved in any military system. A professional army, conscription, citizen militia, mercenaries - all of them have their pros and cons. For example, a professional army is well-trained; but it is also a powerful force that is essentially disconnected from the citizenry. You only have to look around the world, or at history, to see dozens of examples of professional armies that launched a coup on government. This usually happens when a soldiery is less loyal to its system of government than its military leaders. Professional armies, therefore, are death sentences to countries with weak governments, little civic feeling and constant land war. Britain, America, Canada and Australia have managed to keep professional armies on a politically tight leash because of a sense of patriotism which trumped loyalty to military; and because none of them have suffered especially long periods of sporadic wars since the inception of professional armies - a destabilising effect that creates a greater love for the military than usual. (When foreign armies are marching across your borders every few decades wouldn't you value the military a bit more?)
The costs of conscription are quite costly though. They can include low morale and training but not necessarily. They do include a massive drain on the economy of a country, such that in a long drawn out war the conscript powers will collapse. This is the lesson the world only learned in World War 1. Before then, Europe had looked at Napoleon's success and concluded that conscription was the solution to the problems that had dogged the other systems. When WW1 came around, though, it was seen what escalation would do: a long struggle that drained a country until total collapse (Germany, and not Britain or France by luck and the Lusitania).
In what way is it an abuse of human rights. Its a term of service to your country that everyone should be proud to do.miracleofsound said:
Please explain how this is an abuse of "Human Rights".
I respectfully disagree.HentMas said:
In World War 1 British soldiers who returned from an attack uninjured or unordered would be summarily executed.
In World War 2 Russian Soldiers would be machine gunned if they attempted to run from the advancing Germans. Likewise Germans would be hung if they tried to run from the Russians.
Abstain from joining the Isreal Defence Force and you go to prison.
All the 'love for your country' schtick is bollocks. It's like the British Empire, people 'loved' being part of it because the alternative was being in it's way.
Regardless of how much propaganda you shove down their throats. A Conscript system is totaly reliant on an underlying threat of violence to function.
Yes, but they are all motivated because they are fighting there home turf, figting people attacking civies in there cities, without proper motivation a soldier is not as effective as he could be.chaosfenrir said:
well... you put really fine examples in there, i dont really know how to argue that point, but it should be the other way around, people trying to deffend their country not just getting killed for not doing it.fix-the-spade said:
i like you!! can we be friends!?
Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others.
- Alexander Hamilton
There will always need to be an army to protect against foreign threats, just like there will always need to be a police force to protect from domestic threats.
Ordinarily, the volunteer army will be enough. I'm not against mandatory conscription like they have in Israel, but I'm not convinced it's entirely necessary either.
But when we are in a situation like WW1 or WW2, the draft is not an option. And don't forget, most of our soldiers in those wars were drafted. They still got the job done.
- Alexander Hamilton
There will always need to be an army to protect against foreign threats, just like there will always need to be a police force to protect from domestic threats.
Ordinarily, the volunteer army will be enough. I'm not against mandatory conscription like they have in Israel, but I'm not convinced it's entirely necessary either.
But when we are in a situation like WW1 or WW2, the draft is not an option. And don't forget, most of our soldiers in those wars were drafted. They still got the job done.
We don't have it in England and that I'm glad of. I have never been a fan of fighting yet alone for my country. Also, before people yell at me for believing it is an abuse of human rights, that isn't the reason I'm against it. The reason I'm against it is basically because we're fighting for what is basically a bunch of guys in suits who don't want to do it themselves. It's basically like a little kid getting bullied, so he gets his big brother's mates to help him. If people want to fight, kill and possibly die for these politicians, be my guest, just leave me out of it.
It is an abuse of human rights in that it is something which is forced upon people when it is something that a vast percentage of them do not want.EMFCRACKSHOT said:
I know people who have lost thier family business and livelihoods due to conscription laws.
Now, now, that's a little overly confrontational.Metalhandkerchief said:
I wonder where you could have learned that trait?
No I do not have personal experience as I live in Ireland, a country where we fortunately do not have conscription.
I do have good friends who are in the Irish army because they signed up and it is a life they chose. I respect that as much as they respect my choice not to.
Is it really that hard for you to appreciate the fact that there are some people who are not cut out for that kind of life and that to have it forced upon them would be a nightmare?
I have a German friend whose father got ill just before he had to be conscripted. The father was unable to carry on the family business and my friend could not get out of service so thier livelihood of 3 generations was destroyed.
Why, prey tell, am I the kind of person that makes conscription neccesary? The only war I ever started was a nerd-off over the merits of Windows XP.
By the way, I certainly don't know anyone who wants to be pummelled to death. And I can't see how joining the army would reduce your chances of it...