Poll: Should National Service be introduced

[MarcusMang]

I think we also run into one very big problem. Most American kids are fatties. I weight 265 currently (1/3 muscle 2/3 pudding) and if the draft was reinstated right now, I would not be able to serve even if I wanted to. Although I wouldn't mind having a desk job for the military.

 

[Kubanator]

Dude, America alone has enough money to defeat world hunger, and and stop extreme poverty. But they don't. You know why? Because they spend a shite load on their military!

How do you "defeat" world hunger? Feed everybody? How do you "stop" poverty? Give everybody money? When the money and food run out, do you give them some more?

Why is it a nation's government's job to defeat world hunger? I think Americans pay their taxes understanding that the money is going to go toward their nation's defense, not to plant carrots in Somalia.

I'm sure with six-hundred billion plus, the government can think of something. They would be pretty set to retooling poverty striken and hungry countries, as well as feeding them and granting farms and power.

When the money runs out, hand them more. That toatal summery of money was a spending of one year. So, so much money gone to waste. What is America going to do with those guns and nukes? Nothing/end lives/sell them?

Whatever they want! That's what they're going to do! It's not their JOB to GIVE other countries ANYTHING. That's my point. It's not their job to give them food, it's not their job to give them seeds to grow food.

Someone doesn't understand economics. You have a company. You sell tables. Would you want to sell tables to an audience of 10 or 100 people? Obviously you want a greater market. Now, obviously the government isn't as stupid as an average internet user, and would invest heavily in creation of infrastructure and businesses. With those 2 things, you can build a stable economy which creates a new market for American goods, which means more jobs for Americans. In a WORLD market, it pays to help the world.

 

[Bat Vader]

Dude, America alone has enough money to defeat world hunger, and and stop extreme poverty. But they don't. You know why? Because they spend a shite load on their military!

How do you "defeat" world hunger? Feed everybody? How do you "stop" poverty? Give everybody money? When the money and food run out, do you give them some more?

Why is it a nation's government's job to defeat world hunger? I think Americans pay their taxes understanding that the money is going to go toward their nation's defense, not to plant carrots in Somalia.

I'm sure with six-hundred billion plus, the government can think of something. They would be pretty set to retooling poverty striken and hungry countries, as well as feeding them and granting farms and power.

When the money runs out, hand them more. That toatal summery of money was a spending of one year. So, so much money gone to waste. What is America going to do with those guns and nukes? Nothing/end lives/sell them?

Whatever they want! That's what they're going to do! It's not their JOB to GIVE other countries ANYTHING. That's my point. It's not their job to give them food, it's not their job to give them seeds to grow food.

It is no ones job to help these people yet some countries do anyway because they generally want to help make the world a better place.

 

[Zacharine]

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me?

If you don't have to do it until you're 30, how does that help with the OP's problem?

It could help sort out yob culture, show the reality behind violence.

Most naturally don't wait until they are 25 or 27 or whatever to go to the military,

Again, how does that help with the OP's problem? Aren't the kind of people who are part of "yob culture" the kind of people who will wait?

So you didn't bother to read the entire paragraph.

because MOST who do the military service do it early in their lives. It translates to better examples walking down the streets, big brothers talking to their little brothers at homes, grown men knowing a bit better what they want their eventual children to grow up like.

There is no magical solution, but national service does help over the years, not to mention generations.

Well then the quote should be "All those we know of arose through war, or through another state arising through war and then peacefully causing them to arise"

I don't make the quotes, I just find them and use them as they were said. It's called... quoting

Well, if the quote needs to be fixed before it makes any sense, why...quote it? That's like saying "I didn't give you a car that I broke, it was broke when I bought it for you."

You really aren't this stupid, are you? Why does anyone ever quote anyone? No one is 100% correct. The quotes were meant to give readers an idea of what other, possibly quite famous, knowledgeable and experienced people thought of the subject!

In any case, what about Iceland? No indication that war had to be fought by the Vikings who arrived there, and eventually Denmark just granted it independence.

And what of internal fighting?

What about it? War is, by definition, *external* fighting. Unless it rises to the level of a *civil* war, and I don't know of any Icelandic civil wars.

As I said, it has been a while since I've dealt with the history if Iceland in any shape or form. No, there haven't been actual civil wars. If you'd read the entire paragraph, AGAIN, you'd seen I'm fully aware and acknowledge that Iceland is likely one of the extremely few cases of modern nations that didn't arise through warfare. Though one could make an argument of the entire Viking society and what allowed them to develop sufficient seamanship, navigation and resources for inhabiting Iceland.

Also, why are you posting about how 'the price must be paid for freedom' in a thread that's about compulsory military service NOT with the intent of fighting or being better prepared for war?

Compulsory military service is preparing for war.

Maybe, but, right now the OP's home country doesn't think it's necessary. The OP did not propose compulsory military service because it is needed to prepare for war: I didn't see anything in the OP that suggests he feels his country is unprepared for war, and needs compulsory military service to be so.

*Facepalm*

Compulsory military service would help with the OPs problem, that is my opinion. No, i didn't say it would need to be proposed because of war. Regardless, compulsory military service is preparing for war. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. It would not be military service otherwise. But that service also has results to manners, dicipline and general outlook of life that apply to civilian life as well.

And I believe we aren't here to talk about the OPs country's official views on the matter, but rather OUR views on the matter.

And in most countries, some generation has had to pay for the freedom exhibited by the current generation, by fighting in a war to defend the existance of their state.

But the OP is talking about THIS generation, not SOME generation.

But this generation might become that some generation. Do you think people who were teens in 1920s and early 1930s though they'd have to fight a war? Or that war was likely? Do you honestly?

To think that there is zero possibility that this generation might have to fight for their freedom is to show utter ignorance of reality and of international human politics. For modern western countries this chance might be negligible but it does exist.

 

[Zacharine]

So you didn't bother to read the entire paragraph.

No, it's just that the rest of the paragraph didn't indicate to me any reason the kind of people the OP is talking about are the kind of people who won't delay.

neither have you indicated anything to the contrary. If you'd bother to read, you'd see how I sate that there is no magical solution but I personally believe a compulsory military service would help. I've already stated the reasons for it as well.

The youth of your country is not necessarily like that of the youth of the OP's country. In fact, I think if the youth of his country were like the youth of your country even without the effect of military service on them, he never would have made his proposal in the first place.

Of course the youth are not the same, partly because of the differing policies regarding compulsory military service. But I pointed out how things are done somewhere else, giving an indication of how things might chance if things were made different in the OPs country.

Yeah, but you were hedging your bets there--had to point that out.

Did you? Instead of bothering to read and comprehend what I wrote? And possibly think of what it might mean for more than 1/3 of a second?

Okay, but all your arguments in support of that opinion have almost nothing to do with the OPs problem up until this latest post of yours.

Then you haven't though of what I've written for even that 1/3 of a second. You haven't actually comprehended my posts nor have you thought of the indications and ideas they point to. Read them again, with thought this time. I've also responded to the objections and points raised by other people, not just the OP.

If by "matter" you mean compulsory military service *in general*

No, so the rest of your paragraph is half-meaningless. By this matter I mean inducting a compulsory military service to a country that doesn't yet have it and with some youth problems. The discussion I was having was about the merits, downsides and results of such a change in official policy in the OPs country. I was simply using my own country as an example.

When did I say there was zero possibility that this generation might have to fight for their freedom? I just said that the OP seems to think that the current level of preparation--which is higher than zero--is adequate for military purposes, but that for *social* purposes the level of militarization should be raised.

And I was pointing out that there is no such thing as purely social military service, venue or application. They are by definition military and should be regarded as such. If you remember, I've also pointed out some of the myths and facts regarding the social consequences of military service and I am in favor of compulsory service, not only because of those social consequences but of the possible primary military applications opened up both for the country and for the individual.

To me it seemed you were denying any and all potential usefulness of the military applications, the primary goal of military service.

 

[Zacharine]

I'll just leave it at "you did not understand me, and not because of any lack of clarity on my part."

Wouldn't we all like to think that...

 

[johnman]

There is more support for national serive than you would think. I am not fully behind it as weapons training is the last thing half our teenagers need, but as an army Cadet, i am not against it.

 

[PurpleRain]

There is more support for national serive than you would think. I am not fully behind it as weapons training is the last thing half our teenagers need, but as an army Cadet, i am not against it.

I was in the cadets and yet I'm against it. I found being a cadet fun and exciting and whatnot, but forcing people into it with lack of their will is just wrong.

 

[furnatic]

We need National Service in the States. At least two years in the military before the age of 40.

 

[LANCE420]

I wouldn't support it, but if i was drafted, I would be no coward and I wouldn't run away.

 

[furnatic]

Here's my thoughts behind it. It will prepare you more for the real world. Not to mention, if you want the option to go to college, then you can and it will be paid for. Don't get me wrong. I'm in the military and have been in for the past 5 years. I don't regret it. I have a bachelors in forensic science, all paid for by the military. Like said, I don't regret it, but would I do it over again? Hell no.

Anyways, it prepares you more for the real world, you get a decent paycheck with good benefits, and country wise, it helps bring up the armed forces size.

Of course I'm also the guy who believes, the military while required, should be stricter on who is let in. I swear to god. I've met some guys higher up than me who shouldn't have made it through boot camp.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Answer to this is simple. "does it infringe on the rights of the individual?" A. Yes it does henceforth it is unjust and reprehensable.

Does gun control infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, therefore it is unjust and reprehensible.

Do job security laws infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, therefore unjust and reprehensible. Nevermind the amounts of accidents and injuries they remove, they infringe on our freedoms!

Do taxes infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, it's my money, gorramit! Taxes are reprehensible and unjust!

Do teraffic laws infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, it is my right to drive however I want!

Really, while you are entitled to you opinion, at least state logical reasons for it.

I'll address the other points later but, National service is nothing more than indentured servitude, or pseudo imprisonment (if mandatory) how is that not despicable?