Conscription

So, what is your view on conscription and compulsory military service?

I'll post mine after people have replied.

I dont think it should be mandatory, but I think if you really loved your country you'd try to serve it in some way (though it doesnt have to be military).

If it wasn't mandatory, then it wouldn't be conscription now would it?

Curse your insidious logic.

Mandatory service shouldn't be necessary if the war is one worth fighting.

I'm for it. If your country needs you to fight a war--one that needs to be fought--then it should be your duty to protect it.

I don't believe war is the answer, and I would never participate in one for any reason, so nay to conscription.

[quote=Lord of Spam]I dont think it should be mandatory, but I think if you really loved your country you'd try to serve it in some way (though it doesnt have to be military).
What if I don't love my country, just marginally prefer it over everywhere else?

Wolves are vegetarians, *******. They don't kill stuff.

Not everyone will agree, that's obvious. Those people will just have to suck it up or hop the boarder. But I have a feeling, if a draft is ever in place, it will actually be for a valid reason. Not something like Iraq or what have you.

I'm not so sure. If countrys were prepared to go to Iraq under the threat of weapons of mass destruction then I'm sure that qualifies as a valid reason, what with it putting the world at risk, in the eyes of the governments. Problem is we wouldnt really know unless it actually happens. But I will say if I were president and thought going to Iraq was an issue of world safety and consriction was in place I personally would use it.

Conscription belongs to the age of total societal mobilisation for wars, an era which due to the change nature of war has long since passed.

I've always considered conscription to be a violation of my rights. I'm pretty sure the government telling me I have to risk my life for my country would be a slight infringement on my right to life.

In addition, military personel who are fighting against their will are usually less efficient than those who fight willingly. I realize that every soldier is going to try to survive in battle, but some people are more adept at waging war than others, and all I'm saying is that those people are going to be more effective soldiers in general.

Add that to Bebop's point about the government possibly abusing the definition of what a "necessary" war is, and you've pretty much got my argument.

Then why the hell bother with all thsiu DUR IMMA WOLF faggotry.

Humans are animals. Bs about "embracing animal essences" or whatever is just retarded and redundant. Humans ARE animals.

though for the record, I;d say that the people that think humans arent animals need to watch more nature documentaries, then observe groups of humans interacting. There have been numerous times when I'd looked at groups and noticed behavior that I recognized from animals.

Only if the power to force military action isn't held by a single person, or small group of people, and could be kept by a group kept clear of partisan faggotry, it could be a good thing.

Mandatory military service is a travesty. I would never go off and fight in a) something I think is stupid or b) to "defend" my country. Let's get one thing straight, when an army from another country marches into the USA and starts picking people off, THAN I'll be up in arms like anyone else, and sure I'll join the military if my actual life is in immediate, if not, soon-to-be danger. But if mandatory military service involves being sent to some foreign country to deal with bull**** that we shouldn't be dealing with in the first place (I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about all the wars in the past that have not involved or needed our involvement. Sure, we helped in WWII, but even if I was there, I wouldn't of given a ****). For every person not willing to join the army, there's probably four others who would jump at the chance to blow someone's head off for "the sake of the home country". Whatever. Not my problem, and even if it affected me in some aspect, I still wouldn't give a ****, because there's nothing on this Earth strong enough to get my lazy *** out of my house and listen to someone bark orders in my face everyday so I can be a good little soldier. End.

With the wolf thing: Wolves cannot be compared to humans in terms of 'killing' because humans are far more 'intelligent' (apparently), yet they are too stupid to control their animalistic instincts, etc. Very few first world humans don't need to kill/fight each other to survive, living in a civilised society, etc with laws, protection.
Wolves, however, live in the wild. In the wild, they could get killed. They often need to fight to survive, or eat. There's nothing wrong with hunting either, because they don't hunt other wolves - they hunt only for food. (unlike humans, who hunt for fun half the time)

Look at a wolf society, and then look at a human society, with all the retardation going around. People are supposed to be 'intelligent', yet they don't do much better than wolves.


Anyway, conscription is a foolish idea.
Most conscript armies are very low-grade - they often don't have very much training (especially when conscription starts during the war), people are often not psychologically suited to war, morale is usally low for involuntary armies, everything.
It also violates basic rights of a human.
It is also a form of age discrimination: older people often vote for conscription, safe in their knowledge that they will never have to go to war.

A referendum for conscription should be limited to the people who actually are eligible to be conscripted, and if it is voted for, the people who voted for it should always be conscripted first.

Also, though violence may be able to solve any situation, it cannot solve a situation well. In a level-of-benefit and a moral sense.

[quote=higbvuyb]With the wolf thing: Wolves cannot be compared to humans in terms of 'killing' because humans are far more 'intelligent' (apparently), yet they are too stupid to control their animalistic instincts, etc. Very few first world humans don't need to kill/fight each other to survive, living in a civilised society, etc with laws, protection.
Wolves, however, live in the wild. In the wild, they could get killed. They often need to fight to survive, or eat. There's nothing wrong with hunting either, because they don't hunt other wolves - they hunt only for food. (unlike humans, who hunt for fun half the time)

Look at a wolf society, and then look at a human society, with all the retardation going around. People are supposed to be 'intelligent', yet they don't do much better than wolves.
When you compare species you have to compare them as an entire species. It's bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it to compare one wolf (pretty much identical to every other wolf) to one psychopathic human (not the norm) and reason that wolves are superior because they don't kill, maim or rape (you ever heard of a wolf dating?). The vast majority of humans have most of their instincts under control, certainly the ones that would cause a lot of damage.

When you consider humans total accomplishments we kick the crap out of every mammal on the planet. We've adapted to every single environment imaginable on this Earth, we've become the dominant species despite our dull senses, weak physical form, and lack of any special talents other then the ability to collect data.

What I don't get is why Raptor doesn't become a monk or something. They do nothing but good, go completely out of their way to avoid harming another living creature and strive to gain complete understanding of their body and mind through meditation and martial arts. Certainly a superior being compared to a primitive creature like a wolf.

EDIT: No, no. I'm quote sure psychopath does have a meaning.

[B]psy

Primitive is good.

then so are the urges and behavior that goes with it, at which point your WAH HOOMANS R MEEN stuff is worthless.

Way to **** this **** up with retarded topics about wolves typing on computers, you *******s.

Conscription is not necessary thanks to a great advancement in military technology and the way wars are fought now.

I honestly don't think it helps that much. If we're short on troops, forcing people to join when they don't want isn't the answer. You may have more men out there, but it doesn't mean much if they're just trying to avoid combat and not get killed until their term is up.

If you're in the military, you should want to be there. At times, we are low on troops, and I think we should offer incentives for enlisting.

The military isn't the only thing in short supply. A few years back in the public school district here in town, the board announced that they were understaffed a great deal for teachers. They offered great incentives for certified substitutes to teach a whole year. They also made it possible to issue single-year contracts to student-teachers. That whole year was filled with many teachers who would only be there for that year, but it was necessary based on the growing student body and the needs of the school.

Imagine if they had forced unfit people into such an important position as being a teacher.

Now imagine if they force someone into such an important position as entering an enemy country's borders.

You may feel that teaching a class is a lot different than fighting a war, but consider if the guys who found Saddam Hussein in a hole had been forcibly enlisted. I'd freak out if I ran into that guy. Even though he seemed defenseless at the time, who knows if maybe there were a whole bunch of Saddam's men waiting around someone like those guys to show up, so they could kill them and move Saddam to a different place.

A decision on the battlefield usually effects whether you personally live or die. But sometimes, a soldier is faced with a choice that can turn the battle around, either way. Having undedicated soldiers out there seems like it would only hurt our cause.

Apart from Iraq, we've had much worse enemies, even at times when the "Draft" was in place. A great deal of conscripted American soldiers died in Vietnam and Korea. Maybe because they weren't soldiers. Maybe because they were teachers, doctors, or any other profession besides soldier, and as such, they made lousy soldiers and ended up dying or failing at their goal.

It seems to me that a person who can make a career out of being in the military is a defined person. Even those who have a successful 3 or 4 year term, even those people possess a unique quality that makes them able to do well. Much like playing music, cooking meals, building houses, playing sports... Not everyone is cut out to be in the military. I know they have requirements for physical health to ensure that you don't go in there and die during basic, but even if you meet the physical requirements, you may be mentally unsuited for combat, or operations relating to it.

I've worried about the Draft coming back around, and my number getting pulled. I've been thinking I may join the military, but if I do, it's going to be when I want to. And it's going to be the branch I want to join (The Air Force).

Funny thing is how well it seems to work in a bunch of European countries like Finland and Germany.

Because those countries have a different mindset, on the whole.

First of all, in a country like Israel, if you're a male and you're not retarded or handicapped, you know you're gonna serve. That's just how Israel is. So everyone grows up knowing that it is coming, eventually, and when it does, they've been aware of it their whole life.

In a country like America, military service has been on a voluntary basis, for the overwhelming majority of our history. It's become part of what supposedly dinstinguishes us from other countries.

To change that will result in an American population feeling like they've been stripped of a right held by Americans since the beginning of the USA. And while they may comply and show up at whatever Army base at Oh-eight hundred hours, they will be doing it half-heartedly, resenting the very institution for which they now work, resulting in a Military made of many soldiers who only showed up to avoid jailtime.

Don't you guys still have to actually register for the draft, though? Shouldn't that be hinting to people that maybe, just maybe, they'll be called up?

It worked for America in the mid-1900s. If it happens again, something tells me that 90 percent of the tough-talkers will simply submit and fight, instead of the rebellion they oh-so-love to talk about.

Me? I think I'd fight. Honestly, I'm up for almost anything that will give me a story to tell my grandkids, good or bad.

How would you feel about being conscripted into post-nuclear clean-up duty instead, since that's about as likely as a big enough conventional war to necessitate conscription. Of course that wouldn't be so much a draft as a press-ganging...

two points

1. Wolves are pussies.

2. Conscription will work and always has. It's not like it hasn't survived the test of time or anything.

**** conscription. Being A Marine is an honor, and a responsibiliy. I dont want anyone who doesnt want to live up to the standards set by the Marine Corps being forced into it. Also, I have to deal with enough borderline retarded people at work as is, and they WANT to be here.
Do you know how much new guys get ****ed with? Its done for a reason, but still, if we had new guys showing up that didnt wanna be here and had ****ty attitudes it would make everyones life more difficult cause wed have to break them.

[quote=Poco]Jesus, I love how you like to sound tough and badass, but you get blowjobs from 13 year olds and watch anime.

lol i remember this one time it was like a day before his 17th birthday and he said he watched the ring movie online so he had me call him and he started crying saying he didn't wanna die

he's a puss

I'd do it, but I'd make a **** poor soldier. THATS why conscription isnt the best alternative.

[quote=specopssv44]
Yeah you know what that is right? Taking care of yourself and the people your in charge of. Knowing how to do your job, knowing how to lead etc etc... Maybe one day youll move out of your parents house and understand.

**** man, calm down. Wasn't knocking on you or anything, I was just picking out a typo that sounded funny to me. I actually support the troops--my boyfriend was going to join, unfortunately, he's nearly blind (at least legally blind in his left eye) so they wouldn't allow him.

Geez. <3

your point was: What, by 'Conscription has survived the test of time' you mean 'Every single conscript army throughout history has been **** and far inferior to a professional army soldier for soldier'?

I'm pointing out to you that there has never been a major war where there was two, let alone ONE (hah, redundant) "professional" army, so your point is moot. It's like saying "every cyborg ninja hamster sent to a third world country has cured aids, so why don't we just send cyborg ninja hamsters to the Congo????" It's not exactly the whole truth, good sir.

WHY THE **** DO YOU NOT ELABORATE. I hate people who make statements and expect us to swallow them. We're not your boyfriend, (lolgayjoke)

fine. Name some "wars" in which both sides were professional armies. I'm tired of this.

you can't make a claim that conscription hasn't stood the test of time and then fail to make an example to back up your argument. In large wars in which conscription is necessary, it works. Yet you cannot give examples to prove contrary. Quit making demands of me and fucking put something on the ***damn table, dip****.

ah, I see. I misread the first post apparently. But to call an army "****" just because it's conscripted is a bit overdoing it, imo