CONSCRIPTION (NATIONAL SERVICE)

[Ross]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**

*Originally posted by Ross *
Ummm. Cite? I never really thought of Ghandi as a “pussy” before. In fact in many ways his pacifism got him into more trouble. And it freed his country, too.

A humble, gentle man, centred on others, not himself. He defeated everything the military could throw at him, not despite but because he never lifted a finger. **

That’s because Ghandi didn’t flee to Canada like a little bitch.

What kind of garbage is this? Are we in Great Debates or not?

I am not an expert on Ghandi, but I’m pretty sure he did not defeat the British military. He defeated them by using civil disobedience to exercise political force.

So he did defeat them, then? So you take my point? He rid India of colonial rule with non-violence?

Ghandis strategy was effective because the British are relatively reasonable and civilized.

You might like to run a search on the history of the Raj, or even just on British colonial policy during the 19th and 20th centuries. Or just watch the movie. Can you say “massacre”? Can you say “ugliness”?

Can you say “I’m sorry, it was wrong to say all pacifists are pussies, I just have real problems with their agenda and doubts about their motives”?

[Ross]

Look, msmith, I’m sorry if my reply sounded a little harsh. I agree with a lot of what you said and I appreciate the way you think. But some of my best friends are little bitches.

[Klaatu]

re: Not wanting to be there

I was Regular Army from '79-80. A good portion of my unit was composed of “Go to jail or join the service” type people. I don’t know if this was even technically legal, or a scare tactic by judges or whatever.

The fact was, they believed it, and they DID NOT want to be there. This was essentially conscription, as far as they were concerned. Fights were common, racial tensions high, and morale was basically non-existent.

A lot of them went AWOL, but most did just enough to keep from getting kicked out, as they were afraid of the consequences. The volunteer and career people tried to change these attitudes, but it didn’t generally work. When people just don’t give a damn, you can’t field an effective fighting force.

The combat readiness of my unit was abysmal, and I know a lot of other units in the division were the same way. Granted, this was only a few years after 'Nam, when the military was basically in a shambles anyway.

For all I know, my situation may have been a somewhat isolated one, and I can’t speak for the AF, Navy or Marines.

But without some “Great National Cause” (like WWII was) I think we would have much of the same problems with conscription today. I am only speaking in terms of the military, and have no opinion on other forms of compulsory national service.

[VarlosZ]

msmith, if you keep referring to pacificists as “pussies” or “little bitches,” it won’t be long before someone comes in here to call you (quite correctly) an “asshole.”

. . . nope, not long at all.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Ross *
**In the UK we used to have it. Now we don’t. Everybody had to do two years in the army, navy or airforce, presumably with sensible exceptions.

**

We had it in the United States but we decided to get rid of it. I also heard someone here talking about bringing back conscription a year or two back because of the lack of military enlistees.

**
(a) to reduce unemployment

**

Employment would just shoot right back to where it was when all those people got out of the military. In other words it would look good on paper for 2 years.

**
(b) give kids a comprehensive education to make up for their comprehensive education. Maybe they’ll even learn to read.

**

The United States military does not provide a comprehensive education. If you come into the military with poor literacy skills you will be assigned to something that does not require literacy skills. There are people in the Navy who will spend their enlistment doing little more then swabbing decks.

**
© perhaps inspire a bit of motivation more effectively than restart courses and TV programmes can.

**

I’m not convinced that anyone forced to join the military is going to be positively motivated. They might modify their behavior while in the military to avoid getting in trouble.

**
(a) the army hates the idea because dealing with people who don’t want to be there really doesn’t make anything any easier

**

That’s correct. You get some real losers when you start forcing people to join.

**
(b) whatever way you look at it, you’re training young people to kill

**

That’s what the military does and I can’t say I think it is a bad thing. However there are many occupations in the military that don’t involve killing.

**
© patriotism looks a bit scary these days

**

I don’t think it looks all that scary.

[Alessan]

So, Klaatu - half your unit was made up of criminal lowlifes, and you say you had a discipline problem? Interesting.

[Alessan]

That’s correct. You get some real losers when you start forcing people to join.

You also get some real losers if the only people willing to join up are losers.

No offence.

[Alessan]

OK, that was out of line. What I mean to say, is that in the current system, a large pecentage of people joining the military - perhaps the majority - are people without anything better to do with their lives. I’m not saying that they can’t be excellent soldiers; I’m saying that given the choice between a college scholarship (academic or athletic) and military service, very few kids would choose to enlist. And those guys - the jocks, the wiz-kids - are what make the core of any good military service.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

As a reminder: there will be no calling your fellow posters here “pussies”, “bitches” or “assholes”, no matter what their personal beliefs are. Understood? I’m looking at you in particular, VarlosZ.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Essured]

*Originally posted by Ross *
**
(a) the army hates the idea because dealing with people who don’t want to be there really doesn’t make anything any easier
**

I think you have the answer right there.

The army is in the business of defending its country. This is a business that the career military takes incredibly seriously. If they don’t want to introduce peace-time conscription, I can’t think why anybody else would think it was a good idea.

To all those who suggest the younger generation needs discipline, motivation, etc… yes, some people do. A lot don’t, so why make any kind of service (be it military or community) compulsory ? I for one, had huge motivation, lots of self-respect / self-discipline and knew exactly what I wanted to do at that age. Why make me spend 18 months of my life doing something that you think I should be doing ?

[Ross]

***Originally posted by Goo ***

Why make me spend 18 months of my life doing something that you think I should be doing ? **

Because it would be funny?

::ducks and runs::

[Spiny_Norman]

• the Israeli Army seems to know what the f.ck it’s doing.

Different place, different culture, different time: Back at the end of the Cold War, I took part in the Danish National Service lottery: Draw a number, and you’ll get called up in ascending order until we have the manpower we need this year. About 25% of all Danish men get called up in this way.

I decided to volunteer - it carries a slight benefit, in that you get to state a preference as to where you want to serve - as did about 80% of my unit. I happen to believe we made a pretty damn good company, perhaps partly because we had among us a lot of the bright people who’ve now gone on to become lawyers and doctors. Of course, this was in the bad old days where defense meant invasion defense and most armies in Europe were designed to be mobilized and fight Soviet armour columns overrolling Germany.

In reality, most people who didn’t want to be there got nudged away from the demanding jobs. Not everybody in the Army is a kick-ass, sleep-in-the-snow, march-25-miles-on-a-swig-of-water, baby-eating fighting man - lots of people are basically truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, clerks etc. wearing green. Anyway, a lot of those who’d rather be somewhere else came around and became quite good soldiers - one shouldn’t underestimate the power of unit cohesion. They might not have loved the Army at the outset, but screwing up would mean letting your squadmates down, and that was simply not done. Some changed their minds enough to become career soldiers.

The practice has some serious benefits, IMHO: The military does not become separated from the rest of society and some people from widely differing social strata leave the service with a newfound respect for people with other backgrounds. And some people really do benefit from getting shouted at - I’m not sure I wasn’t one of them.

As for educational, the skills learned were a bit arcane. Just how many people benefit from being able to recognize foreign armoured vehicles in seconds ?

OTOH, I used a lot of the lessons about instruction and leadership in other walks of life. If you can explain something complex to a bunch of overworked, tired and wet soldiers, you’ve learned a good bit about communication.

I do think, however, that the practice has outlived itself.

The modern European armies aren’t currently gearing up to defend against Warsaw Pact invasion, but to go somewhere else and stop people from butting heads - fighting aggressors if necessary. This demands fewer, better trained and better equipped soldiers, IMHO. You can reasonably ask someone to defend his own country with whatever there is available, but if you’re sending him somewhere else, he’d better have the best training and equipment you can possible give him.
S. Norman,
2DEL/LIVKMP/I/DRLR