|
| Thread: Conscription in Australia |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
posted January 06, 2006 10:06 AM |
|
|
Conscription in Australia
Over 30 years ago, the Young Labor group of Australia were staging mass protests against conscription for the Vietnam war, which led to the abolishment of such an act.
2006, and the Young Labor have turned coat. Soon there will be a bill put forward to reinstate national service in schools.
Why they would reinstate conscription is anyone's guess but due to December's race riots in Sydney peprpetrated by the Patriotic Youth League and other Neo-Nazi groups, the misunderstood teenagers of today may be t6aught discipline.
Please express your views as that may help my decision on this subject.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted January 06, 2006 03:08 PM |
|
|
Conscription is a scary thing
Really, I find it incredible that in today's society conscription is still a reality.
The argument about teaching youth some discipline is a bad one for the following reasons:
1) there are other more effective ways of teaching discipline than the military. Look at Canada; I don't find the youths here are out of discipline. Think about it: aren't the race riots indicative of something more profound in the Australian culture? Isn't it indicative of a problem within the society itself? These protests and riots are not fun to have, but are useful nonetheless; they indicate how people feel. Does your government want to shut itself off from understanding how youths think? Teenagers are not stupid people, they do things for a reason and the government should be open to that instead of closing their minds and forcing conscription to "discipline" them.
2) the idea behind conscription is not discipline, it's for augmenting military might. Is that a path Austalia is ready to move towards?
Limiting choice and forcing the people to do things in any country is a very sensitive and dangerous thing to do. It has, in some cases, lead to civil war.
If Canada adopted conscription, I'd move to Switzerland or Norway. Nerver will I be forced to resort to violence. If I do so (to protect my family) it will be of my own will and I shall accept the consequences (mental problems) that come along with such violence.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 06, 2006 03:31 PM |
|
|
Canadians Have Much To Be Thankful For
Were any of the soldiers conscripted into the British - Canadian settlements in the war of 1812? If I recall my history, had the British - Canadians not kept the arrogant Americans out then they would be a part of modern day United States thus subject to all our laws.
Now let me ask you . . . if you were an American today how would you feel about having a president who lied to you and mislead you into a foreign war in Iraq?
My point is you should be thankful you aren't an American today. You really have no idea how many fights and arguments are happening here to have our soldiers come home. Be thankful for your Canadian history that they did not allow an arrogant America to simply issue edicts of superiority. You should be respectful of your Canadian legacy that you are one of the few countries who helped give we Americans our rightful humility. If it weren't for the soldiers who served in the British - Canadian army (whom might have been conscripted), you might not be where you are today.
No country has the right to bully its neighbors. It is the responsibility of all sovereign nations to espouse a certain level of respect from neighboring countries through diplomacy, trade, and common decency.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted January 06, 2006 03:46 PM |
|
Edited by Conan on 6 Jan 2006
|
point well taken, Consis.
I just don't know if they where conscripted or not...
In any case, I do agree that conscription or not, during that time I would of gone to war. But let me point out that the war of 1812 is a much different setting than Australia is facing at the moment. Is anyone about to invade them? What is the threat? Why conscription? Who is the bully in this case?
By not having conscription in Australia, does it mean that another country will invade them and annexe them?
I am grateful for my history and the blood that was shed in Canada, but I still beleive conscription in our day and age is not motivated by the same purposes and so it's use is highly questionnable.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted January 06, 2006 04:59 PM |
|
Edited by Russ on 6 Jan 2006
|
Quote:
If it weren't for the soldiers who served in the British - Canadian army (whom might have been conscripted), you might not be where you are today.
Just to add to this and maybe to clarify something - the recently conquered French Canadians fought in this war on the Canadian side! This little detail may have decided that war, since Americans expected the French to fight on their side instead. I doubt that any French got conscripted, because if the British tried to pull that, they'd definitely lose the very little hard earned support they had and end up getting backstabbed on the battlefields.
Edit: by the way, as far as I know, most British Canadians who fought in this war were volunteers. Actually, I find it easy to belive that all of them were volunteers. Many people (like me and some other people who posted here) would never join the army to fight some stupid and pointless war that seems to make no sense to them, but would volunteer to defend their country when there is a need.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 06, 2006 06:00 PM |
|
|
Excellent Points
Conscription is necessary to win a war. During our own American revolution a third of our population was pro-independence, a third was pro-British, and a third didn't care about either. The same is true for many other historic wars. The point is there will always be a segment of the population who doesn't want to go to war even if the cause is justified. It was a worthy cause for the British-Canadians to repel American invaders, a worthy cause to seek independence from the royal crown of Britain, and a worthy cause to fight in world war II. All of these are examples in which conscription took place when the cause was worthy. And it can be proven that this conscription affected the turnout for each war.
As Conan and Russ both stated, the cause must be justified. It must be worthy. If the reason for war is not worthy then the reason for conscription will be criminal in my opinion. Who decides a war's worthiness? I'd say this sort of decision lies with the majority of people in their country.
In any case, conscription is a clear and present necessary consideration for all countries.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted January 06, 2006 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the reason for war is not worthy then the reason for conscription will be criminal in my opinion. Who decides a war's worthiness? I'd say this sort of decision lies with the majority of people in their country.
Very good point about conscription being criminal without a worthy reason. But I don't think the democratic principle of the "majority rule" can be applied here. Say, a few years ago the majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq. Does it mean that the non-supporters should be forced to fight there?
I think the only justification for conscription is a direct attack against your country or an immediate threat (i.e. the British weren't the first ones to get attacked in the WWII, but it was pretty obvious they would be within a few months, so it would be justified to conscript some new men to train them a little before the attack.) I can't possibly think of any immediate threat like that hovering over Australia (well, maybe except for The Easter Island Threat - it just looks too spooky to be trustworthy  )
|
|
grendal
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2006 08:37 AM |
|
|
I dont think conscription existed in Canada back in the 1800s. However i believe to warrant protection by the British armies, Canadian residents were required to join the militia. Once a citizen joined, if required by the British army, they had to fight when called upon or be subject to death. Im not sure on this but it is what i remember from history classes (a long time ago) 
As for the French they were more than willing to defend Canada because they felt it was "their country". Canada bent over backwards to appease them after the French conceded Canada to England (including non interference with their catholic religion). The French and the native indians were a big factor in defeating the American invasion.
As for conscription, it was enacted in 1917 and caused significant unrest. The French felt it was a European war and did not want to fight. People died in riots protesting this government action. Ultimately exemptions were made. Then these exemptions were eliminated because there was a dire need for men by Britain. I believe it ended after world war 1
When WW2 occurred the idea came forth again
" However, as of 1941, given the sluggish level of recruiting in Canada, a certain number of people began to urge conscription. These people came first from the Conservative Party, but were later supported by English Canadians as a whole. Faced with this reaction, Mackenzie King held a plebiscite asking Canadians to free the government from its previous commitment.
On April 27, 1942, 71% of Quebec citizens voted against the proposal. Elsewhere in Canada, the proposal was agreed to by a majority of 70%. In July of the same year, using this majority, the Government adopted Bill 80, which allowed conscription for overseas service when deemed necessary."
The French were willing to defend Canada (or more to the point, their way of life) but not willing to defend Britain.
.
I feel conscription should only be used if an eminent threat to a nation exists. Australia is attempting to use it to control social discourse and is contemptable in my opinion.
Maybe some eastern Europeans can comment on this. Some of those countries have mandatory service for all teenagers.
____________
Life is full of frustrations, heroes should help release it!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted January 07, 2006 12:07 PM |
|
|
I've never been in the army 
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted January 07, 2006 10:20 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Quote:
If Canada adopted conscription, I'd move to Switzerland or Norway.
Why? Both Switzerland and Norway have mandatory military service for young men. Or did you just mean that you'd move to Switzerland or Norway?
Anyway, I pretty much share what seems to be the opinion of the majority here - that conscription should only be applied in times of (military) crisis. If you take Norway, we are situated rather close to what used to be an agressive Tsarist Russia or Communist Soviet Union, and thus have traditionally been forced into having a relatively large military budget (relative to the population, Norway's military budget is the second largest in NATO; only the US uses more money per capita then Norway), and a somewhat large army. But since we're not exactly a populous state - and voluteers thus being too few to satisfy the demand - we use(d) conscription as a means of getting enough men to our army. Two years ago, when I was supposed to serve my time in the army, 10.000 consripts were enlisted. This system of conscription we have is combined with a law, which states that all men under the age of some 40 years are obliged to serve in the army in time of war.
So, if the Soviet Union attacked us, we would mobilize just about every man under the age of 40, and try to hold the Soviets at bay for 24 hours. (24 hours was the period of time estimated as required for NATO reinforcements to arrive.)
Today, the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, but that's not something which affects the Cold Warriors of the Ministry of Defense. Still, 10.000-20.000 youths are enlisted through conscription annualy, and sent to some remote camp in the inner parts of Northern Norway, where they waste a year of their life, watching bad Hollywood action movies and porn.
There is of course an option, the so-called civil service, which lasts for 13 or 14 months, and is served in some kind of institution - e.g. as an assistant in innner city schools, retirement homes, prisons, or similar. Most pacifists choose this way of service
But that doesn't change the fact that the entire Norwegian system of conscription is based on flawed, or rather archaic, premises. Despite the fact that Russia no longer represents a direct threat to Norwegian autonomy/sovereignty, our ground forces are still encamped/positioned as if they do. So, in order to make this post relevant to the thread's theme, I ask: Is this a legitimate system of conscription?
The answer to this question is of course no, it is not a legitimate system of conscription. There are no direct threats to Norway - at least none that can be countered by mobilization of the entire male population. The Russians are too preoccupied with asserting at least some kind of semblance of control over their former satelite states (although there are some traits about their new political system that worries me). The Swedes are neutral and thus have nothing to gain from attacking Norway, since the Brits and the Yanks would simply give them a good pounding. (Not that Sweden has the resources to stage such an attack in any case...) Denmark has no reason to attack us, nor the Germans, or the Brits. If Norway should have a realistic army, we'd have a large navy to protect our maritime interests, a sizeable airforce to assist our allies if they require some help, and a perhaps 2000-3000 man task force to serve in UN, NATO and EU missions. Not a 20.000 man large land based army, aimed at defending the country from the Reds. (After all, the Reds are currently governing Norway. )
So, we've established that such an army as the Norwegian one isn't "legitimate", at least not in accordance with the definition formed by Russ, Consis and Conan above.
However, it is functional.What do I mean by "functional"?
It serves a couple of functions. When the majority of this country's young men serve in the army, we are guaranteed that the people who volunteer for service in the professional army, know what it is they are going to (at least to a certain degree). They will be familiar with the equipment, the routines, and such things, and so the time needed for them to get used to army life is reduced.
A related function is that people who otherwise would never have considered a military career might find that this is what they want to spend a part of their life doing, and apply for a job in the professional forces.
Thus, conscription can help to increase the recruitment to the professional armed forces.
Furthermore, conscription helps to absorb some of the unemployment, since it's not guaranteed that every conscript would have found a job - and the ones who did might have taken the job of someone else. Conscription can thus be seen as a labour market measure (a concept which is probably unknown to most Americans and Australians ).
I am sure there are other functions of conscription as well, but these are the ones I managed to come up with on a short notice. So you see, conscription in times of peace can be justified just as much as conscription in times of war. (And perhaps even more, since the death rates among conscripts are usually much higher than among professional soldiers.) And not just on an argumentation founded on old and rather out-dated reasons of "discipline".
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2006 11:08 PM |
|
|
very interesting post Terje.
Your point of decreasing jobless rates is very well put.
I'll give you a star for explaining how conscription works in Norway, for seeing the bad of an outdated conscription system and still pointing out the use for conscription in the present. Very good arguments and excellent to point out differing point of views.
anyways, please forgive my ignorance, I didn't know that Norway had conscription. BTW, what did you do? Did you go?
As for Switz, I am amazed as to why they have conscription. The never take parts in wars... why do they have conscription? Anyone?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 08, 2006 12:17 AM |
|
Edited by Consis on 7 Jan 2006
|
Yes . . .
That's what I like about terje_the_mad_wizard. He is so young, so fascinating, and yet still so foreign to me. I have always enjoyed his posts; never once feeling uninterested. Though he is young and from such a different country, I am constantly reminded by what I read that human beings are very much human no matter the distance that seperates them. He is a great value to this world in this day and age and I feel priviledged to read his literal thoughts over this strange new electronic highway of information. And also, methinks he is a good man with a good heart regardless of his high degree of intelligence.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted January 08, 2006 06:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
very interesting post Terje.
Your point of decreasing jobless rates is very well put.
I'll give you a star for explaining how conscription works in Norway, for seeing the bad of an outdated conscription system and still pointing out the use for conscription in the present. Very good arguments and excellent to point out differing point of views.
anyways, please forgive my ignorance, I didn't know that Norway had conscription. BTW, what did you do? Did you go?
As for Switz, I am amazed as to why they have conscription. The never take parts in wars... why do they have conscription? Anyone?
Norway have conscription?
I, myself, am also surprised about Norway having conscription. Aren't they supposed to be a really left-wing nation? Unfortunately Australia is leaning towards the right with that midget Howard in charge.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2006 07:50 AM |
|
|
conscription
Yes agree about your description of HOward and I would not stop there... What concerns me is that it is labor that is proposing this???? And in schools??? could you please give more details.
I cannot see the main reason for this decision as being the riots in sydney (cannot believe these riots happened but it's true). People need to learn about people, actually engage with people from different cultures, and issues such as 'the children overboard' should be responded to with a change in governement. Any way that is getting off track.
I doublt that conscription will be a viable option in australia (we cannot fill positions for dishpigs/dishwashers - and yes, I am an amazing one, due to the lack of interest from native Australians (and yes, I am one of those too), so I really doubt the majority of Australians would be prepared to allow conscription to happen unless the country was under direct physical threat. Other than the treat we are always under due to Howard that is.
If it is introduced, let's look at the program, I'm sure, if introduced through schools will not be anything too life shattering. Our government starts these wars, purhaps they need the troops to fight them.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted January 08, 2006 08:54 PM |
|
|
Gosh, Consis and Conan, you're making me blush here.
Quote:
anyways, please forgive my ignorance, I didn't know that Norway had conscription. BTW, what did you do? Did you go?
I was supposed to go last winter (starting August 2004, ending July or August 2005), but thanks to some kind of unknown disease, I got a postponement, and later I got an even longer postponement thanks to the fact that I now had started my education. (They've removed that rule now, but my postponement still stands, luckily.) So I'm a free man until at least the summer of 2007, and most likely for ever.
Quote:
Norway have conscription?
I, myself, am also surprised about Norway having conscription. Aren't they supposed to be a really left-wing nation?
Yeah, we lean pretty hard to the left, at least when compared to most other Western countries. (And thank God for that...) However, even though we were governed by Labour from 1935 to 1965 (excepting of course 1940-45, for obvious reasons), we were never espescially warm towards the Soviet Union. Sure, Labour was part of the Soviet International in the early 1930s, but during the German occupation, they got bit by the McCarthy-virus, and started cooperating more closely with the US. You know, not everyone on the left wing likes each other. Social Democrats have always disliked Communists, Communists despise Anarchists, Socialists hate Social Democrats, and revolutionaries hate reformists.
Ah, sorry for once again dragging this thread off topic, but I felt I should answer Trogdor's question.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
posted January 08, 2006 10:47 PM |
|
|
concerning conscription...
Hm... That is a very serious matter and I as well would like to express my opinion on it.
I am still very young and conscription should not be the main topic for me. Still, if I was to live in Australia, such threats of conscription would seriously frighten me and would certainly make me discuss about it, as I am against it.
As far as I know, here, in Lithuania (place where I live), the conscription is functioning in a bit different way than I understand usual conscriptions are. By saying functioning, I mean the cause of why the youth is conscripted. In Lithuania, those who are of age (18 or more) are taken into army only if they do not continue/start their education in universities. I think Lithuanians are pretty lucky about it. Yet, there are similar things here like in Norway. If you receive the letter of conscription, it can sometimes be postponed, if you start your studies at university. In my opinion, though I don't exactly know, it is possible to evade the conscription if you study at university, then finish your studies and immediately find a job. From my own knowledge, a similar situation once occured, though I would not like to discuss it right now. In general, the conscription is so-to-say limited here.
Now, I would like to express my opinion by quoting some members.
Quote:
Why? Both Switzerland and Norway have mandatory military service for young men
Geez... And I once thought I would move to Switzerland or Austria after I finish my school and/or university studies. Austria's a mystery though, as I do not know if there is any kind of conscription there.
Quote:
2) the idea behind conscription is not discipline, it's for augmenting military might
... and I too believe that that's what's behind this all. People are being taken into the army for not only teaching them some manners and discipline, but mostly for increasing Lithuania's military might... They want to convince people, trick people into the army, to keep the numbers of army men high.
Quote:
Conscription is necessary to win a war.
Well, in my opinion, it is, but not always. As far as I know, some wars, caused by revolutions and revolt or just for power, were won by simple, untrained people, for example, villagers, farmers. Yet, I am not speaking about contemporary wars as I seriously doubt that a farmer with a pitchfork can do much, though sometimes tactically used pitchfork can be even better than a rifle. In big numbers, pitchforks could do quite much, but... Oh well, enough being off-topic What I am generally saying is that not always it is necessary to conscript people into army to win a war. However, most of the time, it is.
Quote:
you take Norway, we are situated rather close to what used to be an agressive Tsarist Russia or Communist Soviet Union...
Oh my, Lithuania's even closer :S I hope we will not need such a large budget to keep them off our backs, in case of emergency...
By the way, I remember that a few months ago, a russian fighter aircraft crash-landed in Lithuania... There was a scandal about why did NATO forces, situated in northern Lithuania, react so slowly... and what was the true purpose of it. The newspapers told that there may be many new conscripts, people, taken into our army in future, so as to be prepared if something happens. Who knows if this happens, but I hope not.
Quote:
Furthermore, conscription helps to absorb some of the unemployment, since it's not guaranteed that every conscript would have found a job - and the ones who did might have taken the job of someone else.
Well, I agree with that. I don't suppose it happens here, in Lithuania, but conscription could really help absorb a nice amount of unemployment.
Concerning unemployment, the statistics of how many people are unemployed are outrageous (it used to be 1/6 a few years ago). Conscription would be good for those lazy younglings or those who are unsuccessful with finding a proper job. However, I think that if the Lithuanian army consisted of those who use drugs, drink alcohol and smoke an unlimited amount of cigarettes and marihuana - and that is the majority of those who are unemployed - it would not be a good thing. It would even damage our military, I think.
As a conclusion, I would like to say that I find conscription unnecessary and that it is only needed in times of war or great need. The only people to go to the army should be those who are willing and want to do that. My father's cousin, seemingly an uncle of mine, wasn't conscripted, but went to the army voluntarily, as he wanted to become more disciplined, tougher, more proud of himself. That was his will, so nobody was against it.
I may not fully understand how serious this matter of having conscriptions is and I may not understand the matter itself, but I seem to understand that I am against it (concerning probable situation in Australia). I say "no".
____________
|
|
Lord_Pc
Promising
Famous Hero
Groin-Grabingly Clever
|
|
posted January 09, 2006 05:20 AM |
|
|
i live in australia and am only 14 so this issue may soon affect me quite soon.
fisrt off i would like to say i am absolutly against conscription. i dont approve of the "government" sending out ppl to kill other ppl, also recuited because of thier own "government"
Quote:
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."
- Herbert Hoover
this really sums up how the "governments" actions. they say "it is war" and then they send out everyone else to fight it. millions die in the war, but so many more are affected by these deaths. it is evil in itself to force ppl to fight in war to destroy another evil. this ofcourse only happens when we add conscription to the equation. thus no conscription, no unexpected deaths
if australia does take up conscription i will certainly move abroad to a country that doesnt believe in conscription and war. a country with a respectable government
conscription + war = loss of liberty
now some very meaningful quotes
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
- Ernest Hemingway
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
____________
Da-da-dada-HEY-dada-da-da
Two goldfish were in their tank. One turns to the other and says, 'You man the guns, I'll drive.'
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted January 09, 2006 06:10 AM |
|
|
I can clearly see your point Lord PC. Conscription is not only unconstitutional, but can also cost conflicts. If Australia didn't conscript young men to fight we might have won at Vietnam. But before then people in Australia were more concerned about underage people volunteering to fight at the beaches of Gallipoli than enforce conscription. A few years later the enemy surrendered to the allies, thanks in part to then US President Woodrow Wilson, who then created the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, which would eventually become the UN. Germany in the late twenties was flourishing until the Third Reich. Most Nazis were happy to be conscripted because they listened to the Fuhrer a bit too much. Yet again the Germans surrended through another world war. Hitler shot himself, Mussolini was shot in public by Allied forces and Franco was still depressed during Spain's neutral stance. Then came the sixties and the Vietnam conflict caused much distress and protests were abundant, especially here in Australia where every day birth dates were drawn from a barrel and those drawn were either sent to fight in the war or be placed in prison for being pacifists.
It is now 2005. Bush Senior started a war against the Iraqi infidels and has since been less popular. The most surprising force, the Young Labor Group, is now requesting mandatory national service to teach respect for other nations while being true to our own. There are several groups whom I think will oppose the national service bill.
- Pacifists
- Left-wing extremists
- The Australian Democrats Party
Therefore I shall say that conscription is a terrible idea and that there are better ways to deal with white seperatists, especially those involved in the riots in Sydney. I will now rest my case.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 09, 2006 09:21 AM |
|
|
Perhaps Australia could take a leaf our of France's book who used conscription up until 1996. Their format though (after Algeria anyway) involved retaining a core force of rapid reaction units, mostly comprised of volunteers who were willing to serve overseas regardless of the duty. The remainder of the army could not be sent abroad (let alone go to war) without an express vote of the French parliment. Conscripted men could also volunteer to serve abroad as within some of the rapid reaction units there were non-volunteers. This practice meant France could use the conscripted mass to defend France and maintain security freeing the volunteer minority to serve abroad and fight in the wars. Alternatively this minority could augment the conscripts during any defence of France itself providing an experienced core.
I'm personally against national service being enforced on a country that doesn't absolutely need it due to circumstance but there are ways to adapt conscription to make it more palatable for those involved.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2006 03:28 PM |
|
|
As to the point of the Swiss. The swiss have a mandatary millitary service. They have had it for a very long time as defending was a very important thing in their history. The swiss have been rebelling, or at least the Helvets living in Switzerland, eversince the times of the Roman empire. Then against the German overlords to finnaly gain indipendence.
They are defensively a very strategicaly situated. Therefore their permanent army is quite small. Although after reaching 18 every young man is forced to serve military service.
Since tier active task force is so small every man has military equipement practicaly at home. Mostly in the local administrative center, a town hall etc. But yes the swiss have an army, eventhough they are neutral they still have an army...
The sweeds are neutral too and they still produce some fo the best attack aircraft in the world, right?
As for the situation here at home. I am relieved. This summer the minister of defense officialy ended the mandatory war service. Since I'll be 18 in march it is good news for me, eventhought there are ways to get out of the military if one wants.
I doubt I would have gone anyway, since this idea repulses me. The army should be fully profesional and functional, especilay in todays world of military alliances and tactical warfare over goodo'l massive battles. Our army has exceptionaly good Paratroopers, Medics and Auxilliary teams like Chemical Squads and The Demining sqauds.
That is what modern armies of EU and NATO should center on. Close specialization, over a pointless and expensive army big on numbers, so together with allies they can create a responsive army with the ability to strike fast.
But my views are strongly against war of any kind weather it's serving mandatorily "for your nation" or any kind of conflict. Never would go I into mandatory service. There are other ways of being taught discipline, rather then being bullied by a sergant who usualy is lucky to have a highschool finished. That is not the way.
As for preventing kids getting on the neo-nazi trail by shipping them off to the army is not a great idea. When someone wants to join them and sympatases them he or she will find their way. It is not a mater of serving in the army or disscipline, it's about their wrong views. I certanly would not want Nazis in our army learning to shoot, kill and manipulate weapons...
____________
|
| |
|
|
