CanuckInUSA 0 #1 February 20, 2009 Should military service be mandatory? First off let me state that I feel there should be a distinction between combat roles and non combat roles. I do believe that combat is best left to the volunteers so I am definitely not asking if combat should be mandatory. Anyway you look around society and what do you see? There are millions of less than inspiring people who feel they entitled to the easy life, but few show any sort of responsibility or work ethics. I could pick on the overweight XBox generation (they are easy targets) but truth be told these trends started before the computer gamers ever hit the streets. If governments are going to spend trillions creating "make work" projects in these less than stellar economic times is it better to feed a person a fish every day or is it better to teach them how to fish. I am far from perfect, but a brief stint in Canada's reserves back in the early 1980s really did wonders in turning my life around and it taught me a lot about personal responsibility (plus shooting the machine guns was fun ... cleaning them not so much fun, but there was a price to be paid to be allowed to shoot those machine guns). I feel that if Canada and the USA made non combative military service mandatory to both sexes, it would do wonders towards helping both countries teaching people some much need life skills. Of course one needs to be careful not to create an atmosphere like the Hitler Youth, but it has to be better than the current path we find ourselves in. Plus it might help some people identify with the nation they call home more. Look at Canada's military (LOL yes it is small, but we have one) and there are virtually no immigrants in it. Yet Canada is probably the world's most ethnically diverse nation. Why is this? Is Canada not worth their effort? What sort of message do they send (we will take from your country but give nothing in return). So "yes" or "no" ... should some sort of non combative military service be mandatory. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baksteen 84 #2 February 20, 2009 Would you really want your military logistics to be dependent on a bunch of slackers who need to be in the "make work" program? "That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport." ~mom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 February 20, 2009 Interesting topic... However, I don't feel that going back to the draft (which basically is what your suggestion is) is a workable solution. I don't know that there *is* any real way to instill personal responsibility in those that have none - the 'xbox generation' that you speak of makes that plain. Why exert yourself when you can 'get your money for nothin' and your chicks for free'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SARLDO 0 #4 February 20, 2009 Absolutely not! As said, the last thing I want in my squadron is a bunch of folks who don't want to be there to begin with. We already spend too much time dealing with problem children who should just be sent home. I'm pretty well convinced hat I can reduce the size of any aviation squadrons maintenance department by about 30% and have it be far more efficient by losing the dead weight. The system you ask of works in Israel though. Maybe because they are surrounded by folks who secretly or openly want them dead. Self preservation IS a motivator isn't it?"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest" ~Samuel Clemens MB#4300 Dudeist Skydiver #68 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 February 20, 2009 we've had a few lengthy discussions on this in the past 6 months. Key faults are the unmotivated quality of work, and the undervaluing of the benefit to the country when some pursue academics instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #6 February 20, 2009 Yes, but no. Yes - I feel, as you stated, that there are MANY that feel "entitled" to multiple government provided services. Many of those expect to take from taxes, but really have no desire to pay in or contribute to the society. If there was a form of civil service that was mandatory starting at age 18-22 (or even 18-20... or once done with college, 22-24) then I think people would have more respect for they they are "owed" by the government. By working for something, you better understand it's worth. No - Personally, I don't want the whiners in the military. It might "make them better people" but it would tear up the morale. Civil service - have them work in Nursing homes, Hospitals, road clean up, painting over vandalism/graffiti, work in food banks/ homeless shelters, orphanages/ foster care (admin jobs... not take those lil children home). Help them see that so many have worse off situations and that maybe their life isn't really as bad as they think it is. Jobs that help the community but not necessarily in the military. Those that WANT to do their service in the military can but not forced military service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,144 #7 February 20, 2009 Not necessarily military, but I'd be all in favor of some form of mandatory service. 1-2 years, preferably right out of high school or at the age of 18 -- whichever comes last. And I think that pretty much everyone should be included. There are jobs for stupid people, the mildly retarded, the very smart, and many physically handicapped people. Not practical for the actively violent (they belong in jail), and probably a poor use of time for kids who are already contributing to the world of science by then. But those numbers are small. Living away from your folks in a somewhat structured environment gives lots of kids a chance to make some minor mistakes and just deal with the consequences, rather than having their parents do it, or having their parents say "I told you so." It also gives all of them a chance to see that there are lots of ways to contribute, and it exposes kids with limited perspectives to a wider set. Then they go back to their lives (or head over to the military, with a year or two of learning to live in groups with some supervision and discipline). If everyone does it, it's not an interruption, it's what everyone does. And think of what all that enthusiasm and energy could contribute. No, not perfect, and there would be kids who resented etc. But, ya know -- life is like that. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 February 20, 2009 Here's an interesting Wikipedia synopsis of the subject. Includes history; which countries do/do not conscript; which ones do/do not draft women; arguments Pro and Con... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #9 February 20, 2009 Only in an emergency, otherwise no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #10 February 20, 2009 HELL NO!!! I would trust have of todays youth with the life of a hamster I sure as hell wouldn't want some long haired little lay about covering by ass.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #11 February 20, 2009 switzerland has it, we say "military has never harmed (a young) one". so, if you're physically and mentally fit, you're expected to do your service. one can opt out and do "civil work", mostly if you do not want to do armed service, then you might end up in a hospital of some sort, or look for old people or something. switzerland is never engaged in combat, but does support or logistics like in former yugoslavia. even that, only volunteers do. i dont think its a bad idea, as i said further up, no harm is done..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #12 February 20, 2009 No, unless the Quakers attack us. Been there. It's the only lottery I have ever won.However, I would like to see that every senator, congressman, President, VP, cabinet member, suppreme court justice have at least one blood relative in the milatary and on the front lines during war. Mandatory. Son, daughter, nephew, niece, 15th cousin,etc. If they don't then they could not serve in that position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #13 February 20, 2009 Quote First off let me state that I feel there should be a distinction between combat roles and non combat roles. I do believe that combat is best left to the volunteers so I am definitely not asking if combat should be mandatory. I’m going to steal a line from Tom Ricks – there is no pacifist branch of the US Army. Every member of the military, in the US at least, is supposed to be trained and prepared to engage in combat. Yes, I’m cognizant of the gender prohibitions of certain MOS positions, i.e., specialties within the armed services. Allegedly ‘non-combat’ positions like logistics & supply conveys have vividly been shown to not be separate from attack in fights against insurgents. More importantly, even ‘non-combat’ folks in the military are trained to fight. Sitting in front of an ICBM console deep underground in South Dakota is probably as far from direct combat as one may ever get (see ‘death wears bunny slippers' patch). Those are fundamentally offensive capabilities. If one can’t acknowledge that or if you have people charged with that responsibility who might be either outright opposed or hesitant to use it (due to whatever reasons), I don’t want them in those roles. Overseas the US military globally and Canadian forces in Afghanistan have and *will be* (see DoDD 3000.05 & 3000.07) doing a lot of things that aren’t traditional combat. Why and what that means/significance is a whole ‘nother subject. Quote Anyway you look around society and what do you see? There are millions of less than inspiring people who feel they entitled to the easy life, but few show any sort of responsibility or work ethics. I could pick on the overweight XBox generation (they are easy targets) but truth be told these trends started before the computer gamers ever hit the streets (emphasis nerdgirl). *Exactly* Mythologizing any time period or group is rarely accurate. If it appeals highly to members of that group even better, after all skydivers are smarter, more clever, truly embrace life, and make better lovers, right? Quote If governments are going to spend trillions creating "make work" projects in these less than stellar economic times is it better to feed a person a fish every day or is it better to teach them how to fish. If that’s your premise, why do you see military service as the implicit option? Why not (in the US) America Corps, a revitalized Civilian Conservation Corps, Public Health Service, or any number of civilian service options? W/r/t service in the military, I take a somewhat different view: I want military service to be seen as a first choice option for more – neither mandatory nor ‘last choice’ option (whether for money/college money or other reasons). I’ve written w/r/t loss of O-3s (Captains) in the US Army. Retaining E-6s (NCOs) is another problem. I also want ROTC and Jr ROTC in Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Austin, Evanston, Boulder, Ann Arbor, Madison, etc. One of the reasons for the origin of the draft in early 20th century US was a concern that the ‘best & brightest’ would join the military and be killed in WWI. The draft was a way to equally distribute loss across the US population. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #14 February 20, 2009 No. There are other important jobs that do far more to benefit society (e.g. teachers, firemen).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #15 February 20, 2009 As a ground forces commander - I agree with SARLDO 100% I will defend to the death an American's right NOT to serve in the military. I want soldiers who want it...not someone who doesn't.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #16 February 20, 2009 I joined up because I wanted to join up, as did everyone in our military .. and still there was some whinging pussies.. so to conscript folks would only increase that number. The other down sides is that the Fuck-Wits-In-Charge may then be even more deluded to think that they can invade anyone at will because they have a large standing army... And I don't what them thinking like that, no way. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #17 February 20, 2009 so what if you could choose to substitute non-military service, like the Peace Corps? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #18 February 20, 2009 Some sort of service? Yes. Specifically military service? No, unless you expand the scope of military service greatly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #19 February 20, 2009 Quote Look at Canada's military (LOL yes it is small, but we have one) and there are virtually no immigrants in it. Yet Canada is probably the world's most ethnically diverse nation. Why is this? Is Canada not worth their effort? What sort of message do they send (we will take from your country but give nothing in return). Woah, there - back up a second - military service is the only way to give something to your country? Really?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,068 #20 February 20, 2009 Damn; and all I was gonna say was, "non combative military service" Huh, what is that? Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #21 February 20, 2009 QuoteYet Canada is probably the world's most ethnically diverse nation. Living in SoCal, I'm going to have to say no to this. My guess is SoCal is far more ethnically diverse than the entirety of Canada.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #22 February 21, 2009 No, northern mexico... er... I mean... California isn't that diverse any more. It's all... um... can I call illegal immigrants mexican-americans?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #23 February 21, 2009 QuoteNo, northern mexico... er... I mean... California isn't that diverse any more. It's all... um... can I call illegal immigrants mexican-americans? It's certainly not "all" when I can drive around town and see shop signs in languages from dozens of countries.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shaark 0 #24 February 21, 2009 Quote No, unless the Quakers attack us. Been there. It's the only lottery I have ever won.However, I would like to see that every senator, congressman, President, VP, cabinet member, suppreme court justice have at least one blood relative in the milatary and on the front lines during war. Mandatory. Son, daughter, nephew, niece, 15th cousin,etc. If they don't then they could not serve in that position. Rather, any politicians who consider it vital to go to war, should -------- go to war! Give them weapons, and put them in the most hazardous, frontline positions. Let them lead by example. No exceptions, especially re age. tanstaafl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #25 February 21, 2009 One of the primary premises of capitalism is the most intelligent application of resources. That includes human resources. From the standpoint of the government, it is institutional slavery. Lots of people at sub-standard compensation. Throwing masses of people into roles is rarely done in an effective manner. Right now, private business is complaining about a lack of people with higher education. Pushing that educational process back an additional four years is not in the best interest of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
