NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?

Will be back in 15 min.

It would cost too much.

Revolt!

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?

Expensive, imperialistic, unpopular and dumb. People shouldn't be forced into military service if they don't want to do it.

It would be unconstitutional, deployments cannot be longer than two years.

Further, this would lower the amount of education... higher education is already accessible through financial aid programs, and in more ways than one, more financial aid makes higher education less accessible (Rice costs about half as much as other top-tier private colleges because it does not offer its own financial aid -- it still accepts government financial aid, if it didn't the demand would likely be lower and so would the cost).

That's dictatorial, plain and simple.

I think its a stupid idea. But if It ever pulled through I think women should be drafted as well.

Back just to check in, Intersting responses. The idea is not "dumb" just not for everyone. Other countries have manditory service laws, and they seem to me to be doing something right.
The only reason that i excluded women is because i do not believe that they belong in the military. They have better things to do than get raped, pregnant and dead. A man at 230lbs. with full training is not likely to be defeated by a woman equally trained. Size in combat does matter if the training is all the same.

That's dictatorial, plain and simple.
I have a hard driven type "A" personallity. I will have a heart attack in the next few years, and freely admit to being a facist dictator. My way or the highway in my everyday life. Thats why i am divorced.

Back just to check in, Intersting responses. The idea is not "dumb" just not for everyone. Other countries have manditory service laws, and they seem to me to be doing something right.
The only reason that i excluded women is because i do not believe that they belong in the military. They have better things to do than get raped, pregnant and dead. At 230lbs. with full training there are not many women who would be likely to defeat a man.

She could with a gun.

And the only really sensibly-governed nation with manditory service is Switzerland, which also notably has a strict policy of neutrality. If you had that, then draft everyone in permenantly for all I care.

I have a hard driven type "A" personallity. I will have a heart attack in the next few years, and freely admit to being a facist dictator. My way or the highway in my everyday life. Thats why i am divorced.

Well, I personally would rather it if you used your hard driven personality to fight fascism, but, well...good luck to you I guess.

Say that in http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378220 there and you'll get your balls broken by some feminists. Not that I agree with you though, in both women and mandatory service.

Women have as much place in the military as men, as long as they meet the standards I think. No point lowering the standards of an army to let women in.

Mandatory servive? Should I bring out the swastika flags and start screaming "Zieg Heil" now?

A man at 230lbs. with full training is not likely to be defeated by a woman equally trained. Size in combat does matter if the training is all the same.

Oh yeah?

Picture a close combat situation.

Man runs around corner, sees enemy woman. Instincts kick in and man hesitates, not wishing to harm a woman. Woman pulls trigger. Man dies.

She could with a gun.

And the only really sensibly-governed nation with manditory service is Switzerland, which also notably has a strict policy of neutrality. If you had that, then draft everyone in permenantly for all I care.

Yes. she would stand a better chance with a gun. But i still do not believe that women belong in the military. As snipers or otherwise. Eventually Bullets run out. Then what?

Say that in http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378220 there and you'll get your balls broken by some feminists. Not that I agree with you though, in both women and mandatory service.

Women have as much place in the military as men, as long as they meet the standards I think. No point lowering the standards of an army to let women in.

Mandatory servive? Should I bring out the swastika flags and start screaming "Zieg Heil" now?

I suppose that is a fair argument. But most women cannot meet the same psyical standards as most men.

Yes. she would stand a better chance with a gun. But i still do not believe that women belong in the military. As snipers or otherwise. Eventually Bullets run out. Then what?

Then it doesn't matter what sex you are or which crackpot dictator wannabe decided you should have mandatory military service, you're still going to die when your enemy arrives with his gun and bullets.

Mandatory servive? Should I bring out the swastika flags and start screaming "Zieg Heil" now?

Not that kind of facist. I am just almost always right. Every one has a basic right to live. Also i am not german. Just American.

Granted, but why does that mean that those that do fit the requirements can't get in?

Nazi's aren't only germans. There's plenty of white trash nazis in other countries (and nazi's basically have to be white and ARE trash)

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?
Why only men?

Then it doesn't matter what sex you are or which crackpot dictator wannabe decided you should have mandatory military service, you're still going to die when your enemy arrives with his gun and bullets.

for me at least it is easier to watch a man die than a woman. Since cave times it has been our job to protect.

She could with a gun.

And the only really sensibly-governed nation with manditory service is Switzerland, which also notably has a strict policy of neutrality. If you had that, then draft everyone in permenantly for all I care.

So Finland doesnt have a sensible government? Damn! I knew it! :p

for me at least it is easier to watch a man die than a woman. Since cave times it has been our job to protect.
Agreed but equal rights mean equal responsibility’s

And die if nessary.

Sorry got to go. Until tonight my time 10pm in usa arizona.

Agreed but equal rights mean equal responsibility’s
There are other just as important responsabilities that women could tackel.

for me at least it is easier to watch a man die than a woman. Since cave times it has been our job to protect.


Sounds to me like you still live in cave times, mate. And as for the idea that you are nearly always right, is that hopeless egotistical delusion or just outright lies?

There are other just as important responsabilities that women could tackel.
That I am sure men can do too

Sounds to me like you still live in cave times, mate. And as for the idea that you are nearly always right, is that hopeless egotistical delusion or just outright lies?
No. I just "usually" take my time before i give any awnser. but i am pressed for time. and am just a little ego......

No. I just "usually" take my time before i give any awnser. but i am pressed for time. and am just a little ego......

Seems to me you're a close-minded extremist who mistakes totalitarianism for decisiveness and Fascism for sensible government.


And no, Finland doesn't have a sensible government. I mean, look at it. It's almost as bad as the US one. :)

It would be unconstitutional, deployments cannot be longer than two years.

Unless the country has need of your services for a greater period of time.

I beleive that general standards of health would be imrpoved by re-instituting drafts in western countries. I myself wouldn't be opposed to it, but if I have to do it, so do women.

If you get to a situation where you're in a close combat situation without numerical superiority, odds are you're already dead anyway.

While many of you think a national service is facist or totalitarian, I'll remind you that both the US and the UK have had systems of national service within the last 50 years, and if never did my grand parents any harm.

I suppose that is a fair argument. But most women cannot meet the same psyical standards as most men.

That boils all down to motivation.

But yes, I do agree military service should be mandatory for men. To include women would be more costly. I figure, you want to live here, you better be prepared to answer the call and defend your country.

What I don't agree on is the 3 years of active duty and reserve. That should be optional, though 6 years of service should be the standard. To save costs, it should be 1 year of active duty and 5 years in the reserves.

To the threadstarter, were you prior enlisted? Or are you just saying it'd be nice to have someone else fight for me? :P

That boils all down to motivation.

But yes, I do agree military service should be mandatory for men. To include women would be more costly. I figure, you want to live here, you better be prepared to answer the call and defend your country.

What I don't agree on is the 3 years of active duty and reserve. That should be optional, though 6 years of service should be the standard. To save costs, it should be 1 year of active duty and 5 years in the reserves.

To the threadstarter, were you prior enlisted? Or are you just saying it'd be nice to have someone else fight for me? :P
Even with them being statistically weaker there has been statistics that are as high as 9 to 1 support personnel to combat personnel ratio (total)

Was is to stop them from support role in the military?

I beleive that general standards of health would be imrpoved by re-instituting drafts in western countries. I myself wouldn't be opposed to it, but if I have to do it, so do women.

Surely health could be improved by lowering military spending and instituting well-funded public healthcare? Just a thought, mind, but simple maths backs it up nicely.

While many of you think a national service is facist or totalitarian, I'll remind you that both the US and the UK have had systems of national service within the last 50 years, and if never did my grand parents any harm.

Did plenty of others harm, though, didn't it? Look at the casualties in 'Nam or either World War. Just because your grandad survived doesn't mean it's any good for all the kids who aren't here because the man who WOULD have been their grandad actually got shot before he could marry his wife.

Sounds like National Service to me. It's implemented in lots of countries in the world.

Switzerland, Singapore, Isreal, Russia.

I think your proposal is a good one if it is implemented properly. For example, those that are against taking of lives could serve is a humitarian role. Those with limited skills or handicapted could perform tasks suitable for their abilities.

Sounds like National Service to me. It's implemented in lots of countries in the world.

Switzerland, Singapore, Isreal, Russia.

Germany and most of the former Yugoslav countries. Turkey as well (IIRC).

Mandatory national service is a good idea to provide your nation with a broad supply of troops and ressources should you need it. I don´t see anything WRONG or EVIL or FASCIST (as some of you suggested) in that.

Most nations with mandatory military service provide a alternative civil, social or ecological service for thjose who don´t want to be trained to fight - which is (in my opinion) a perfectly acceptable alternative.

I´d also recommend drafting women as well, if they meet the physical standards just like men..

Conscript forces are one of the only ways to make sure, that NOT only the poor or un-priveliged classes need to join the armed forces, but ALL citizens from ALL classes of the society (so war is no longer poor young men dying for the greed of old rich men).

There is no harm in making people stand up for their nation.

Mandatory national service is certainly the best option between professional armies (which are more expensive, less popular and are more likely to become a "state inside the state") and wartime-only draft.

A mandatory service only works in small countries. It'd cost insane amounts to keep it up, and that money would probably be deducted from advanced training. Big countries like America can get along just fine with a hired army where everyone gets quality training. Small countries like Finland wouldn't be able to fight wars or defend their country with a hired army. And it's a big money sink.

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?

It sounds like tyranny and slavery to me. What gives you the right to say that other men should have three years of their lives taken from them for no good reason? Your call for compulsory service would make the government a master of the citizens instead of their servant.

It sounds like tyranny and slavery to me. What gives you the right to say that other men should have three years of their lives taken from them for no good reason? Your call for compulsory service would make the government a master of the citizens instead of their servant.

Exactly. A good goverment should act as a service: we pay it to WORK FOR us, rather than we pay it to control us.

And as for the manadtory service countries, it does only really work for small ones unless you want total economic collapse or an army of poorly equiped conscripts who are basically there to win through sheer attrition. I'd have hoped we'd be beyond such things, and if we had to have war we'd used small number of highly trained professionals. Clearly, I was being a soft-headed liberal again. Let's just go straight back to God-Kings, and scrap government altogether. :rolleyes:

There is no harm in making people stand up for their nation.

A nation that would violate the rights of its citizens to their lives and liberty by forcing them into service isn't worth defending -- it deserves to die and it eventually will. If you can't find volunteers for your cause, then your cause isn't worthy.

I had this discussion with a few co-workers the other day. They were all for mandatory service. So I asked them "Why dont you join then?" Each of them never did a single pushup for the military. Hypocrites.

I had this discussion with a few co-workers the other day. They were all for mandatory service. So I asked them "Why dont you join then?" Each of them never did a single pushup for the military. Hypocrites.

Funny how many people are like that, really. The number of people who go around starting wars when they did they're military service BY POST in the Texas defence air force is lower, but still includes all current US presidents.

Surely health could be improved by lowering military spending and instituting well-funded public healthcare? Just a thought, mind, but simple maths backs it up nicely.



Did plenty of others harm, though, didn't it? Look at the casualties in 'Nam or either World War. Just because your grandad survived doesn't mean it's any good for all the kids who aren't here because the man who WOULD have been their grandad actually got shot before he could marry his wife.

National service during those periods was definitely necessary, we'd probably be speaking german now if it wasn't instituted during world war 2. As for 'Nam, well I can't say much for that that wasn't a British fought war.

As for pumping money into national health services, I'm all for that, but pumping money into them doesn't necessarily equate to them working better. The labour governments last term in office proves that.

Mandatory service works in Finland. No economic collapses here.

And America doesn't need a vast and immediately mobilizable army. Who's going to blitzkrieg you? Canada? Mexico? You've got two oceans on both sides to protect you, you'll see any invasion attemps early enough. A fleet carrying hundreds of thousands, even millions of men is kind of hard to miss. And an army of conscripts doesn't help against missile strikes.
Again, Finland is the next-door neighbour to Russia, a country it has been at war with a couple of times. Should an invasion occur, it could happen overnight without any prior warning. Thus an easily and quickly mobilizable army is needed.
Same goes for many other countries in Europe.

National service during those periods was definitely necessary, we'd probably be speaking german now if it wasn't instituted during world war 2. As for 'Nam, well I can't say much for that that wasn't a British fought war.

Personally, I think the 20 million russian that died probably had more to do with it than our conscription. And yes, I do know the Russians were conscripts too.

But what about the endless slaughter of troops in the first world war? You can't use that senseless waste of life to justify conscription. And it gave the generals the idea they had almost limitless resources to throw at the enemy's machine guns, which doesn't work, but who cares? They might run out of bullets before we run out of people. People are free, after all, while bullets cost 50p a time.

As for pumping money into national health services, I'm all for that, but pumping money into them doesn't necessarily equate to them working better. The labour governments last term in office proves that.

Well, sensibly used funding would. Spending the money on guns DEFINATELY doesn't improve the health service, though. Funny, that.

Mandatory service works in Finland. No economic collapses here.

Yeah, but it's only small. Your population's about 15 million. Your total yearly conscription is probably going to work out at about 100,000 new recruits. Even trained to US standard ($100,000 per trooper), that works out at $1,000,000,000,000. And Finland doesn't train to anything like the same standard, or spend anything like as much on equipment.

The US, on the other hand, has 20 times your population, and so would be spending 20 times as much. Why bother? Do you really need 2 million new troops a year? That's 6 million constant conscript level, never mind the permanent military and the other 6 million reserves. That's just needless, expensive, it'd unsettle the population, and is just a dumb idea.

And America doesn't need a vast and immediately mobilizable army. Who's going to blitzkrieg you? Canada? Mexico? You've got two oceans on both sides to protect you, you'll see any invasion attemps early enough. A fleet carrying hundreds of thousands, even millions of men is kind of hard to miss. And an army of conscripts doesn't help against missile strikes.

Don't forget how good the US is at doing just that, tho. Pearl Harbour, anyone? 9/11? That showed even if the president is told about something, likelyhood is he'll just go on holiday anyway.

Again, Finland is the next-door neighbour to Russia, a country it has been at war with a couple of times. Should an invasion occur, it could happen overnight without any prior warning. Thus an easily and quickly mobilizable army is needed.
Same goes for many other countries in Europe.

Except bloody Switzerland. Does anyone know WHY Switzerland wants to have an army? What's the point? It's basically a huge natural fortress anyway. And it's got France on one side, and Germany on the other, neither of whom would allow the other anywhere near the Swiss, even if they were willing to break the neutrality agreement. WHAT ARE THOSE SWISS BASTARDS DOING? :p

I think it would be good becuase then all men would be more disciplined and in better shape. Only problems, sometimes military guys I've met have been a little scary, sometimes sexist and dominating. If all men had to serve in the military, they would be forced to conform and, if mandatory, infringes on their freedom. Also, there are a lot of guys who simply can't serve in the military: Bad eyesight, flat feet, mentally/physically handicaped, allergic to everything, fear of crowds/knives/open spaces/closed spaces...

Finland has a population of 6 million. Approximately.

They didn't have satellites and long-range sensors in Pearl Harbor.

And the swiss don't REALLY have a conscript army, they lock people up in workshops and make them craft pocket knives, cheese, clocks and chocolate. It's a sadistic system, and someone must open the eyes of the people! Fight the oppression! Viva la resistance!

And I'm actually against mandatory service. As you'd see from my previous posts. And I'm saying America doesn't need it. Finland doesn't need it now, but it did when war was a hot topic. Just saying that small countries (like Finland) couldn't defend themselves with a hired army.

Finland has a population of 6 million. Approximately.

Makes my point all the more valid.

They didn't have satellites and long-range sensors in Pearl Harbor.

True enough. but then again, incompetence is quite a potent force, particularly in the US government and military today.

And the swiss don't REALLY have a conscript army, they lock people up in workshops and make them craft pocket knives, cheese, clocks and chocolate. It's a sadistic system, and someone must open the eyes of the people! Fight the oppression! Viva la resistance!

YES! Some one else who sees the evil of the corrupt Swiss banker-slaves!! DOWN WITH SWITZERLAND!!!!!!

And I'm actually against mandatory service. As you'd see from my previous posts. And I'm saying America doesn't need it. Finland doesn't need it now, but it did when war was a hot topic. Just saying that small countries (like Finland) couldn't defend themselves with a hired army.

I know. I was just being contrary. :)

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?


Military service, no. However, some sort of compulsory government service from age 18 to 21 should be in place, with a common initial training.

You should then have the choice to join the military, or serve in some other capacity - building roads, caring for the elderly, cleaning up urban areas, etc.

This also gives more opportunity for people with disabilities to fill roles.

Making it solely military reeks of fascism.

Now I would make voting rights as an adult conditional on successful completion of government service. After all, if you don't care enough about your country to help others who live there by placing YOURSELF in a position to help (and not just giving money - but yourself), then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be glad to help plant trees, or restore wetlands, or cook food for the elderly, or teach kids to read - as well as some who would like to serve in the military.

Military service, no. However, some sort of compulsory government service from age 18 to 21 should be in place, with a common initial training.

You should then have the choice to join the military, or serve in some other capacity - building roads, caring for the elderly, cleaning up urban areas, etc.

This also gives more opportunity for people with disabilities to fill roles.

Making it solely military reeks of fascism.

Now I would make voting rights as an adult conditional on successful completion of government service. After all, if you don't care enough about your country to help others who live there by placing YOURSELF in a position to help (and not just giving money - but yourself), then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be glad to help plant trees, or restore wetlands, or cook food for the elderly, or teach kids to read - as well as some who would like to serve in the military.

I'd agree to that, mostly. But anyone not given a vote shouldn't have to pay tax, so ditch the idea of working for your electoral rights.

I was born in America but I am Icelandic-German and an American citizen according to your laws and in a way the sevrvice is comulsary, I got a letter from the American Embassy in my country telling me that I must register in the Selective Service and maybe fight in the American military if a war broke out or I could go to prison in America for 5 years and pay $250.000.

I was born in America but I am Icelandic-German and an American citizen according to your laws and in a way the sevrvice is comulsary, I got a letter from the American Embassy in my country telling me that I must register in the Selective Service and maybe fight in the American military if a war broke out or I could go to prison in America for 5 years and pay $250.000.

I hope you sent one back telling them where they could stick it. If they tried to get you extradited, go to the press when your current country tries to deport you. I guarantee they'll back off sharpish.

If you don't want to register, you can go to the American Embassy and renounce your US citizenship. That should end all of your problems.

I bet it won't take more than 10 minutes, including wait time.

Well a U.S. citizenship is like gold. Good schools and and good work.
I will register but a draf has not happend since 1973 so I think I will be okay unless you Americans go to war with North Korea and I do not see that happening.
My countrys will not extradite me for not going to war, I can join the German military if I wish instead or the Icelandic Coast Gaurd.
You understand that I would rather fight for my native lands rather then the U.S., don't get me wrong I like America.
Time will tell what happens.

I understand the native land thing. I've seen the US extradite Greek citizens to Greece so that they can serve in the Greek Navy.

North Korea will be a nuclear war, so no draft.

Now, if we invade Iran or Syria, that would be more people.

Only reason I would agree with this is because it could possibly teach alot of these young punks out here (that have never had to do a damn thing and that show no respect for anything) some discipline.

I understand the native land thing. I've seen the US extradite Greek citizens to Greece so that they can serve in the Greek Navy.

North Korea will be a nuclear war, so no draft.

Now, if we invade Iran or Syria, that would be more people.

Does it not matter if it is a nuclear war or a "conventional" war?
Icelandic law states that no Icelander will be extradited to a foreign country to serve in a foreign military against their will, It does not matter if you were born there or not. This is were Icelandic law and American law "clash". But they will not object if you wish to serve.
I depends on the cause for me.

for me at least it is easier to watch a man die than a woman. Since cave times it has been our job to protect.

You just defeated your own argument.


Oh yeah?

Picture a close combat situation.

Man runs around corner, sees enemy woman. Instincts kick in and man hesitates, not wishing to harm a woman. Woman pulls trigger. Man dies.

Quoting myself now. I just hit a new low :p

I had a friend make a decent arguement for National service once. Though service wasn't just limited to the military. Anything in the civil service, government organisations or other Public services. Nor should it be compulsory, but doing it would entitle you to things like free education, free healthcare, unemployment benefit and other types of welfare. Interesting idea I thought. I have no idea if it would work in practice.

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?
Nega-freaking-tive! I refuse this. If I go into the military, I want it to be of my own accord, not dictated by the government.

if you dont have enough ppl volunteering to fight a war then maybe you shouldn't be fighting it in the first place.

i wouldn't be against some sort of public service in general tho, like volunteer work and stuff.

Even with them being statistically weaker there has been statistics that are as high as 9 to 1 support personnel to combat personnel ratio (total)

Was is to stop them from support role in the military?

Sorry, I don't understand the question clearly. But um, women playing roles as combat support? That's not really an issue at the moment. Although, women with combat MOS's just doesn't exist. Women are restricted from combat roles because if they get pregnant, they're inoperable (Atleast that's what my drill sergeant had said).

Although, women with combat support roles are increasingly finding themselves IN combat. Communications is considered a combat support that's allowed for women to join, and when they may get attached to an infantry company or whatnot. I remember reading about a small group of females that follow Marines and Army Infantry in Iraq during house raids. Mainly for the purpose of searching the Iraqis female and because of other culture differences - that sort of thing.

It sounds like tyranny and slavery to me. What gives you the right to say that other men should have three years of their lives taken from them for no good reason? Your call for compulsory service would make the government a master of the citizens instead of their servant.

The END justifies the MEANS. If you need a conscript army to defend your nation in the frist place so the government can be the servant of the citizens in the first place - ever thought of that?

And as for the manadtory service countries, it does only really work for small ones unless you want total economic collapse or an army of poorly equiped conscripts who are basically there to win through sheer attrition. I'd have hoped we'd be beyond such things, and if we had to have war we'd used small number of highly trained professionals.

Bull. During the 60ties to 70ties West Germany maintained a HIGHLY trained, WELL armed conscript army of almost 3 to 7 million troops while maintaining a steady economic growth. Conscript armies always have a professional core of approx. 50% of the total manpower. It ain´t that expensive and does NOT affect the money which can be spent on training.

If you´re the front line nation in a possible third world war agfainst the Warsaw Pact, conscription is the only option.


A nation that would violate the rights of its citizens to their lives and liberty by forcing them into service isn't worth defending -- it deserves to die and it eventually will. If you can't find volunteers for your cause, then your cause isn't worthy.



See my reply to the first quote. I´d rather die fighting for my country than getting killed by the bombs at home. As I said, sometimes the end can justify the means. If you need to conscript troops to defend your nation, YOUR government, the government of the people, your freedom and liberty, your rights and souvereignity, I´d rather go for mandatory military service in order to put thta burden on ALL citizens rather than on my societies poor or underprivileged class (which make up - in most cases - professional armies).

Funny noone also mentioned that conscription is the best way to recruit new volunteers. My countries best troops, including a number of regional commanders, battlegroup leaders or even later NATO staff members started their career as conscripts.

Professional armies tend to attract social outcasts, the poor or people who are unfit for any other work - want a example? The Spanish army had to lower the minimum IQ requirement to 90 in order to gain enough recruits to maintain their total manpower. Other pro-only armies have smiliar problems.

Conscription/ mandatory military/ civil service is the best way to balance between the "reeks of fascism"/ mercenary/ blood-money professional armies or wartime draft.

Wartime draft is the real sucks, noone mentioned that as well. At least conscripts get drafted all the time, but with a wartime draft, you just draft them once you need them. NOW that´s what I´d call fascist.

The END justifies the MEANS. If you need a conscript army to defend your nation in the frist place so the government can be the servant of the citizens in the first place - ever thought of that?

Ah, good to see at least someone support's Stalin's decision to work 30 million people to death to modernise his country. You utter, utter twat.

Bull. During the 60ties to 70ties West Germany maintained a HIGHLY trained, WELL armed conscript army of almost 3 to 7 million troops while maintaining a steady economic growth. Conscript armies always have a professional core of approx. 50% of the total manpower. It ain´t that expensive and does NOT affect the money which can be spent on training.

If you´re the front line nation in a possible third world war agfainst the Warsaw Pact, conscription is the only option.

Nice point. Not true, but if it was I'd be so disabled right now. West Germany wasn't ALLOWED a military in the 60's and 70's. It was one of the points the allies (particularly France) were very firm on. Last time they'd let Germany off after a major war and let it keep a military, bad things happened.

I think what you're refering to is that Britain, France and the USA all garrisoned Germany to the teeth with they're troops. Not 7 million of them, though. The US army consisted of 2 million at the time, and that was four times as big as either Britain or Frances. And not all of the troops were kept in Germany, either. A lot of the US ones were in 'Nam and Korea. So stop talking out of your arse.

The USSR's military, which outnumbered the Allies, totalled at 3.5 million at it's height. So 7 million conscripts is a figure you either made up or... no, wait, you did just make it up. Is it because you use your buttocks to keep your ears warm?

Oh, and incidently, in the 70s germany's total population was 77 million. no country puts nearly 10% of its population in the military, even if it IS allowed.

See my reply to the first quote. I´d rather die fighting for my country than getting killed by the bombs at home. As I said, sometimes the end can justify the means. If you need to conscript troops to defend your nation, YOUR government, the government of the people, your freedom and liberty, your rights and souvereignity, I´d rather go for mandatory military service in order to put thta burden on ALL citizens rather than on my societies poor or underprivileged class (which make up - in most cases - professional armies).

Depends if you agree with what your government is doing. If I was sent to Iraq fighting for a cause I didn't believe in, you bet your ass I'd be out of there in a shot. I'm not going to kill people for an unjust cause because some prick of a president or PM tells me to.

Funny noone also mentioned that conscription is the best way to recruit new volunteers. My countries best troops, including a number of regional commanders, battlegroup leaders or even later NATO staff members started their career as conscripts.

CONSCRIPTION DOESN'T GET VOLUNTEERS, YOU UTTER MORON. If you are conscripted, you are not a volunteer. You are a conscript. Is there any way at all I can get this simple premise to sink into your unbelievably thick head?

Professional armies tend to attract social outcasts, the poor or people who are unfit for any other work - want a example? The Spanish army had to lower the minimum IQ requirement to 90 in order to gain enough recruits to maintain their total manpower. Other pro-only armies have smiliar problems.

Yes, they do. Conscript armies attract the same people anyway. Did you have a point with this bit, or do you just like to think you're intelligent?

Conscription/ mandatory military/ civil service is the best way to balance between the "reeks of fascism"/ mercenary/ blood-money professional armies or wartime draft.

Wartime draft is the real sucks, noone mentioned that as well. At least conscripts get drafted all the time, but with a wartime draft, you just draft them once you need them. NOW that´s what I´d call fascist.

The END justifies the MEANS. If you need a conscript army to defend your nation in the frist place so the government can be the servant of the citizens in the first place - ever thought of that?

The end justifies the means, does it? That's the kind of thinking behind every atrocity. That's the kind of thinking that allows human monsters like Stalin and Hitler to try to pave the road to their utopias with corpses. That's the principle that criminals act on when they harm others.

I've got news for you, Ulrichland: the United States has done a whole lot of bad shit over the last 200 years, but I'll say this much -- those who fought the revolution were volunteers, from Washington on down to the grunts freezing their balls off in Valley Forge.

Now I would make voting rights as an adult conditional on successful completion of government service. After all, if you don't care enough about your country to help others who live there by placing YOURSELF in a position to help (and not just giving money - but yourself), then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.


some bodys been watching starship troopers!!

does America really need a bigger army i mean its not going to be attacked and if it attacks somewhere else its going to be stuck there for years.

As for women being in the army it wouldn't just be bad becasue men r bigger but also the instinct to protect a woman could lead them to sacrifice them selves trying to rescue one.


CONSCRIPTION DOESN'T GET VOLUNTEERS, YOU UTTER MORON. If you are conscripted, you are not a volunteer. You are a conscript. Is there any way at all I can get this simple premise to sink into your unbelievably thick head?


i think he meant after their term of service is over they stay on....dude read it through your the one with the thick head!

Seems to me you're a close-minded extremist who mistakes totalitarianism for decisiveness and Fascism for sensible government.
:)

I am not closed minded, but i could be considered an extremist. I do listen and every now and then i hear an idea that i think is better than mine. When i do hear something better i follow that course. If i think it is better.

Unless the country has need of your services for a greater period of time.

A country like this one with a policy of being the world police always needs it's citizens service. Check near bottom of page two for referance to this post.

I beleive that general standards of health would be imrpoved by re-instituting drafts in western countries. I myself wouldn't be opposed to it, but if I have to do it, so do women.

If you get to a situation where you're in a close combat situation without numerical superiority, odds are you're already dead anyway.

While many of you think a national service is facist or totalitarian, I'll remind you that both the US and the UK have had systems of national service within the last 50 years, and if never did my grand parents any harm.

I agree with you except for the women.

That boils all down to motivation.

But yes, I do agree military service should be mandatory for men. To include women would be more costly. I figure, you want to live here, you better be prepared to answer the call and defend your country.

What I don't agree on is the 3 years of active duty and reserve. That should be optional, though 6 years of service should be the standard. To save costs, it should be 1 year of active duty and 5 years in the reserves.

To the threadstarter, were you prior enlisted? Or are you just saying it'd be nice to have someone else fight for me? :P

Minimun 2 years active 4 reserve. Prior USMC.

Even with them being statistically weaker there has been statistics that are as high as 9 to 1 support personnel to combat personnel ratio (total)

Was is to stop them from support role in the military?
Any situation where there is a chance that a position might be over run or left without relief would put them at risk from friend and foe alike.

Surely health could be improved by lowering military spending and instituting well-funded public healthcare? Just a thought, mind, but simple maths backs it up nicely.



Did plenty of others harm, though, didn't it? Look at the casualties in 'Nam or either World War. Just because your grandad survived doesn't mean it's any good for all the kids who aren't here because the man who WOULD have been their grandad actually got shot before he could marry his wife.

Reference page 3 post 34.

He means people would be less fat, and in better shape.

I think your proposal is a good one if it is implemented properly. For example, those that are against taking of lives could serve is a humitarian role. Those with limited skills or handicapted could perform tasks suitable for their abilities.

agreed. not everyone need be a fighter, but there must be a screening to prove that they really do have fundamental problems with violence, and are not just scared.

Germany and most of the former Yugoslav countries. Turkey as well (IIRC).

Mandatory national service is a good idea to provide your nation with a broad supply of troops and ressources should you need it. I don´t see anything WRONG or EVIL or FASCIST (as some of you suggested) in that.

Most nations with mandatory military service provide a alternative civil, social or ecological service for thjose who don´t want to be trained to fight - which is (in my opinion) a perfectly acceptable alternative.

I´d also recommend drafting women as well, if they meet the physical standards just like men..

Conscript forces are one of the only ways to make sure, that NOT only the poor or un-priveliged classes need to join the armed forces, but ALL citizens from ALL classes of the society (so war is no longer poor young men dying for the greed of old rich men).

There is no harm in making people stand up for their nation.

Mandatory national service is certainly the best option between professional armies (which are more expensive, less popular and are more likely to become a "state inside the state") and wartime-only draft.

Thank you, and very well said. But still No to women. To much can go wrong in a war where men can lose control.

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?
First to fund that health care requires tax increase. And why so sexist? Why only men? So those of us who are legally blind must shoot a gun? Trust me you don't want a blind guy with gun.

The END justifies the MEANS.

This is the same thought process that is largely resonsible for many of the problems in the world today.


Hypothetical situation... We live next door to each other. Someone in the nieghbor hood rapes my wife, and then kills her, and then rapes our across the street neighbors daughter and kills her, but it is not known exactly who. All the men in the nieghbor hood are summarily arrested, and executed to get this dangourous criminal off of the streets. The ends have been met. Were the means justified?

It sounds like tyranny and slavery to me. What gives you the right to say that other men should have three years of their lives taken from them for no good reason? Your call for compulsory service would make the government a master of the citizens instead of their servant.

I am gov. I must serve you, and rule you at the same time. I must ensure your freedom, and provide force if nessary to ensure it. If you want that freedom then you need to help fight for it.

Exactly. A good goverment should act as a service: we pay it to WORK FOR us, rather than we pay it to control us.

And as for the manadtory service countries, it does only really work for small ones unless you want total economic collapse or an army of poorly equiped conscripts who are basically there to win through sheer attrition. I'd have hoped we'd be beyond such things, and if we had to have war we'd used small number of highly trained professionals. Clearly, I was being a soft-headed liberal again. Let's just go straight back to God-Kings, and scrap government altogether. :rolleyes:

I would be willing to be a god king.
OR
How about we vote in gov. like now, and then they only get paid if they do a good job, then you could begin to eliminate corruption, or cause it to get worse.

A nation that would violate the rights of its citizens to their lives and liberty by forcing them into service isn't worth defending -- it deserves to die and it eventually will. If you can't find volunteers for your cause, then your cause isn't worthy.

There will always be volunteers for any cause. How does this sound My cause is to go and kill third born children. There are those who would volunteer for that. Does that make this a worthy cause?

I had this discussion with a few co-workers the other day. They were all for mandatory service. So I asked them "Why dont you join then?" Each of them never did a single pushup for the military. Hypocrites.

Agreed. Put up or shut up.

Funny how many people are like that, really. The number of people who go around starting wars when they did they're military service BY POST in the Texas defence air force is lower, but still includes all current US presidents.

This is not a site to slander the Commander and Chief. He was voted in fair and square. Accept it and move on. The past is the past please only reference his last 4 years of service not twenty or more years ago.

Mandatory service works in Finland. No economic collapses here.

And America doesn't need a vast and immediately mobilizable army. Who's going to blitzkrieg you? Canada? Mexico? You've got two oceans on both sides to protect you, you'll see any invasion attemps early enough. A fleet carrying hundreds of thousands, even millions of men is kind of hard to miss. And an army of conscripts doesn't help against missile strikes.
Again, Finland is the next-door neighbour to Russia, a country it has been at war with a couple of times. Should an invasion occur, it could happen overnight without any prior warning. Thus an easily and quickly mobilizable army is needed.
Same goes for many other countries in Europe.

Acting world police weather wanted or not need a large trained military.

Only reason I would agree with this is because it could possibly teach alot of these young punks out here (that have never had to do a damn thing and that show no respect for anything) some discipline.
And who would sort out the punks from the good kids?

Never mind. They're clearly all lazy, disrespectful punks, just because they're adolescents.


-- A pretentious sixteen-year-old who likes to think he's sharp enough to butt heads here, and who certainly doesn't consider himself a "punk"

Military service, no. However, some sort of compulsory government service from age 18 to 21 should be in place, with a common initial training.

You should then have the choice to join the military, or serve in some other capacity - building roads, caring for the elderly, cleaning up urban areas, etc.

This also gives more opportunity for people with disabilities to fill roles.

Making it solely military reeks of fascism.

Now I would make voting rights as an adult conditional on successful completion of government service. After all, if you don't care enough about your country to help others who live there by placing YOURSELF in a position to help (and not just giving money - but yourself), then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be glad to help plant trees, or restore wetlands, or cook food for the elderly, or teach kids to read - as well as some who would like to serve in the military.

Lets all go fight some bugs. Sound kinda Starship troopers to me.But is not all together bad just a little off my mark.

Only reason I would agree with this is because it could possibly teach alot of these young punks out here (that have never had to do a damn thing and that show no respect for anything) some discipline.

Yes.

You just defeated your own argument.




Quoting myself now. I just hit a new low :p

Page 4 post 60. no i did not defeat my own argument, after the first time this happened women would be shot on site with out any pause.

I find it realistic in a country like Israel thats at war all the time, whether it likes it or not, so they need everyone they can get but in the US, no, it should be a choice. Why send a future doctor off to Iraq only to get blown to pieces by an Iraqi missile? Seems like a waste.

The END justifies the MEANS. If you need a conscript army to defend your nation in the frist place so the government can be the servant of the citizens in the first place - ever thought of that?



Bull. During the 60ties to 70ties West Germany maintained a HIGHLY trained, WELL armed conscript army of almost 3 to 7 million troops while maintaining a steady economic growth. Conscript armies always have a professional core of approx. 50% of the total manpower. It ain´t that expensive and does NOT affect the money which can be spent on training.

If you´re the front line nation in a possible third world war agfainst the Warsaw Pact, conscription is the only option.





See my reply to the first quote. I´d rather die fighting for my country than getting killed by the bombs at home. As I said, sometimes the end can justify the means. If you need to conscript troops to defend your nation, YOUR government, the government of the people, your freedom and liberty, your rights and souvereignity, I´d rather go for mandatory military service in order to put thta burden on ALL citizens rather than on my societies poor or underprivileged class (which make up - in most cases - professional armies).

Funny noone also mentioned that conscription is the best way to recruit new volunteers. My countries best troops, including a number of regional commanders, battlegroup leaders or even later NATO staff members started their career as conscripts.

Professional armies tend to attract social outcasts, the poor or people who are unfit for any other work - want a example? The Spanish army had to lower the minimum IQ requirement to 90 in order to gain enough recruits to maintain their total manpower. Other pro-only armies have smiliar problems.

Conscription/ mandatory military/ civil service is the best way to balance between the "reeks of fascism"/ mercenary/ blood-money professional armies or wartime draft.

Wartime draft is the real sucks, noone mentioned that as well. At least conscripts get drafted all the time, but with a wartime draft, you just draft them once you need them. NOW that´s what I´d call fascist.

page 5 forgot what post. well put.

First to fund that health care requires tax increase. And why so sexist? Why only men? So those of us who are legally blind must shoot a gun? Trust me you don't want a blind guy with gun.

No blind man you need not have a gun, but you could serve. You could be in the intell. dept. or somewere that does not involve shooting. I am not sexest. well mabey a little, but not in what i consider a bad way. My ex-wife could have worked if she wanted to. She chose not to, and then blamed my work scheduale for her not being able to work. she could have gone to school and i would have paid, but she had to stay with the kids was her excuse for not going. She chose to be a house wife and I chose to work three jobs so that she could. Women can do anything except distract soilders in battle.

This is the same thought process that is largely resonsible for many of the problems in the world today.


Hypothetical situation... We live next door to each other. Someone in the nieghbor hood rapes my wife, and then kills her, and then rapes our across the street neighbors daughter and kills her, but it is not known exactly who. All the men in the nieghbor hood are summarily arrested, and executed to get this dangourous criminal off of the streets. The ends have been met. Were the means justified?

that is insane, and not nessary. However you do have a twisted point. I do not agree with your extream vision, but you do have a point. how about arrested Dna sampled, and polygraphed.

And who would sort out the punks from the good kids?

Never mind. They're clearly all lazy, disrespectful punks, just because they're adolescents.


-- A pretentious sixteen-year-old who likes to think he's sharp enough to butt heads here, and who certainly doesn't consider himself a "punk"

All youth could use a bit of straighting out even the good ones.

I find it realistic in a country like Israel thats at war all the time, whether it likes it or not, so they need everyone they can get but in the US, no, it should be a choice. Why send a future doctor off to Iraq only to get blown to pieces by an Iraqi missile? Seems like a waste.

Mabey this future doctors death allows the birth of the future maker of world peace. No one knows ther potential at the start, and most still do not know at the end.

Page 4 post 60. no i did not defeat my own argument, after the first time this happened women would be shot on site with out any pause.

Maybe by veterans, yeah. But you're talking about a conscript army here. They all have to experience battle for a first time once...

Mabey this future doctors death allows the birth of the future maker of world peace. No one knows ther potential at the start, and most still do not know at the end.



How would this allow a birth? People would be born if he didn't die either.

Bullshit. As a teen, I was a good person, I did voluntary community service, I didn't graffiti, swear in public etc (unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then I look to see if there's kids).

I wasn't lazy, I was respectful to those that deserved it (and age doesn't mean you deserve respect) and you think I should be punished for this by serving in the military?

If anything, doing this will increase any punk "attitudes" towards you. It's adults that think that nadolescents are second class citizens that should be put into forced labour camps, etc.

Maybe by veterans, yeah. But you're talking about a conscript army here. They all have to experience battle for a first time once...

That is why ther are standing orders for units in the field.

How would this allow a birth? People would be born if he didn't die either.
Sya that the doc. did not fight, and as a result another soldier The father of peace died in his place, then the birth of peace did not happen. But the same isd true in reverse. this is a circular argument. no winner.

Come on people, I can't be the only one to vote "no" in this poll.......

Bullshit. As a teen, I was a good person, I did voluntary community service, I didn't graffiti, swear in public etc (unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then I look to see if there's kids).

I wasn't lazy, I was respectful to those that deserved it (and age doesn't mean you deserve respect) and you think I should be punished for this by serving in the military?

If anything, doing this will increase any punk "attitudes" towards you. It's adults that think that nadolescents are second class citizens that should be put into forced labour camps, etc.

No everyone today needs a little straighting out. Society is messed up. not just Punk kids. But as kids you are more likely to learn, and adapt. It is not punishment anyway, but a support of the freedom you so clearly want.

No everyone today needs a little straighting out. Society is messed up. not just Punk kids. But as kids you are more likely to learn, and adapt. It is not punishment anyway, but a support of the freedom you so clearly want.




Yes, death isn't a punishment at all :rolleyes: I'll defend my freedom when I need to and want to but I won't be forced to defend it if I don't see it being threatened.

Back in 15.

Yes, death isn't a punishment at all :rolleyes: I'll defend my freedom when I need to and want to but I won't be forced to defend it if I don't see it being threatened.

Death is only one outcome, and not at the heart of the issue of defending the country that gives you the freedom to live as who you are. A few years is not that much time to ask for a life time or freedom.

No everyone today needs a little straighting out. Society is messed up. not just Punk kids. But as kids you are more likely to learn, and adapt. It is not punishment anyway, but a support of the freedom you so clearly want.

The hell it isn't. You're trying to remove individualism with thoughts like that. Everyones definition of straight is different. There isn't just one universal "straight". Forcing me into military service when I want to go to University and get into a decent job isn't freedom. Yes, let's FORCE people into an organization that DEFENDS peoples freedom. Good work einstein.

A mandatory service only works in small countries. It'd cost insane amounts to keep it up, and that money would probably be deducted from advanced training. Big countries like America can get along just fine with a hired army where everyone gets quality training. Small countries like Finland wouldn't be able to fight wars or defend their country with a hired army. And it's a big money sink.

I'm gonna have to call that utter bullshit, because that's what it is. A conscript army is the CHEAPEST option for keeping a modern defensive military. Finland allocates only 1,8 % of GDP to defence, and there has been talk about increasing this, because what is saved could be used for buying more expensive weapons systems (such as combat helicopters).

Source:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2002/issue3/english/stats.html

That was the shortest 15 minutes I've seen, congrats. But since I live in Canada, which has a a piece of shit for a military and you couldn't force people to join it, I'm not that worried. Having said that, if we were attacked, I defend my country but since all we're doing is guarding Afghanistan and Haiti, I see no need to rush to join.

here.

here.



What?

The hell it isn't. You're trying to remove individualism with thoughts like that. Everyones definition of straight is different. There isn't just one universal "straight". Forcing me into military service when I want to go to University and get into a decent job isn't freedom. Yes, let's FORCE people into an organization that DEFENDS peoples freedom. Good work einstein.

Einstein, No. You can still go after your goals, after you show that you desire your freedom by serving to protect it. I said before that I am a facist. When I say straight I do not mean lets all act the same, but everyone needs to learn respect, reasponsability, and Value. Such as the value of freedom. I do not berate you for your differing opions, but you insult me for mine. Why? does it make you angry that I do not think like you? That I differ from you?

What?
I left and now i am back.

I left and now i am back.



But didn't you come back before this? I'm very lost now. A facist you say? Hmm, I'll wait for the right time to respond to that.

But didn't you come back before this? I'm very lost now. A facist you say? Hmm, I'll wait for the right time to respond to that.
NO. I responded to something that i saw as i was leaving, before i left.

ZENTIA, you still there?

ZENTIA, you still there?


It says he's offline, so no.

It says he's offline, so no.
Ahh should have checked.

Come on people, I can't be the only one to vote "no" in this poll.......
Why didn't you want to be the onl;y one to vote no?

Why didn't you want to be the onl;y one to vote no?


My hockey team lost 20 something to 1 tonight and I was the one who scored our lone goal. Yet I was likely the most pissed off person on the team. I don't like being the only one to do something, makes me seem "odd".

But didn't you come back before this? I'm very lost now. A facist you say? Hmm, I'll wait for the right time to respond to that.
What would be the right time to respond?

My hockey team lost 20 something to 1 tonight and I was the one who scored our lone goal. Yet I was likely the most pissed off person on the team. I don't like being the only one to do something, makes me seem "odd".

What is wrong with being odd? I am according to my friends the "strangest person" they have ever met. That i am "very odd".

What would be the right time to respond?


Why not now? Ok, when you say facist, define what that implies about your mindset. When I hear facist, I think Nazi. So can you sort of explain a bit and then the response will come.

What is wrong with being odd? I am according to my friends the "strangest person" they have ever met. That i am "very odd".



Do you know who Howard Hughes is? And his paranoia with germs and disease. Well, I'm paranoid like that. So I'm almost "insane" in a sense.

Why not now? Ok, when you say facist, define what that implies about your mindset. When I hear facist, I think Nazi. So can you sort of explain a bit and then the response will come.
My way or the highway.
I am right.
Good idea, but mine is better.
This is how you should act, and what you should value at least in general.
I am the King "So let it be written, so let it be done".

It's simple. You try and dorce people to defend freedom. See anything wrong with that? There are also different ways to serve. I could develop a new defense system, or help clean up roads - Things that don't involve you dieing in a senseless war. If My country were to be invaded, I'd sign up, not because I'd think it would be an adventure, but because I want to defend what my country values.

A better alternative to mandatory service would be to make those that aren't seeking higher education join up - unless they have a very damn good reason (eg: providing for family/time intensive family needs)

It makes me angry that you think that every teenager is a second class citizen... Why should we only "fix" teenagers? Why not call out a random date and then those people have to join? Put up or shove off. You want to defend freedom? You do it, but don't force others to do it aswell.

My way or the highway.
I am right.
Good idea, but mine is better.
This is how you should act, and what you should value at least in general.
I am the King "So let it be written, so let it be done".


You sound like a dictator, no offense.

Do you know who Howard Hughes is? And his paranoia with germs and disease. Well, I'm paranoid like that. So I'm almost "insane" in a sense.
Yes have you seen the movie "The Avaitor"? I want to go and see it.

If you are insane then some cultures will believe you blessed by GOD.

Yes have you seen the movie "The Avaitor"? I want to go and see it.



No. Thats more about his early years, when he was a sane, relatively productive member of society. I'm more like him before he died. But I want to see it.

If you are insane then some cultures will believe you blessed by GOD.


In Canada, you just get locked up or worse, sent to interior BC.

You sound like a dictator, no offense.
None taken I can at times, most of the time be a dictator. I lead, and only rarely follow if the goals match up. People follow or I find others who will.

Yeah, but it's only small. Your population's about 15 million. Your total yearly conscription is probably going to work out at about 100,000 new recruits. Even trained to US standard ($100,000 per trooper), that works out at $1,000,000,000,000. And Finland doesn't train to anything like the same standard, or spend anything like as much on equipment.


Huh? You're pulling this out of your ass, aren't you? If we multiply the 27000 troopers Finland trains a year by that hundred thousand, it's $2.7 billion (2.7e9), that is, 2.0 billion euros. Incidentally, Finland spends 2.1 billion euros for defence. There is no difference. If we subtract the materials expenditure, that's 1.6 billion euros. That's 60000 € or $77000 per trooper, hardly "nothing like the same standard". And as I mentioned in an another message, money doesn't necessarily measure "goodness". (Finnish officers' pay is comparatively low.)


The US, on the other hand, has 20 times your population, and so would be spending 20 times as much. Why bother? Do you really need 2 million new troops a year? That's 6 million constant conscript level, never mind the permanent military and the other 6 million reserves. That's just needless, expensive, it'd unsettle the population, and is just a dumb idea.


This is absolutely correct. The best argument against mandatory service in USA is that there is no need for it.


Except bloody Switzerland. Does anyone know WHY Switzerland wants to have an army? What's the point? It's basically a huge natural fortress anyway. And it's got France on one side, and Germany on the other, neither of whom would allow the other anywhere near the Swiss, even if they were willing to break the neutrality agreement. WHAT ARE THOSE SWISS BASTARDS DOING? :p

No natural fortress can shoot. You need people to do that. But you're right that today, the policy of neutrality in countries like Switzerland and Finland is just silly.

In Canada, you just get locked up or worse, sent to interior BC.
I spent Three days in a place for the insane, it drove me mad.

Huh? You're pulling this out of your ass, aren't you? If we multiply the 27000 troopers Finland trains a year by that hundred thousand, it's $2.7 billion (2.7e9), that is, 2.0 billion euros. Incidentally, Finland spends 2.1 billion euro for defence. There is no difference. If we subtract the materials expenditure, that's 1.6 billion euros. That's 60000 € or $77000 per trooper, hardly "nothing like the same standard". And as I mentioned in an another message, money doesn't necessarily measure "goodness".



This is absolutely correct. The best argument against mandatory service in USA is that there is no need for it.



No natural fortress can shoot. You need people to do that. But you're right that today, the policy of neutrality in countries like Switzerland and Finland is just silly.
Whoa someone is still on topic!!!!! Where have you been?

This is absolutely correct. The best argument against mandatory service in USA is that there is no need for it.

There is always a need in this country in these times for more troops who are trained.

Not unless you are in combat or will be.

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?
Topic reminder.

Not unless you are in combat or will be.
This is the world police force that we are talking about, we are always at best one step away from war.

You want 6 years service!?!

Vote Yes On Manditory Service, It Is The Only Sane Thing To Do!

There is always a need in this country in these times for more troops who are trained.

If the U.S. didn't invade other countries they would hardly need much of an army. (which may redundant because the war on iraq, a country that hardly put up much of a fight, cost way too much money for war to be common practice).

The only other reason they would need a bigger army is if they were going to be attacked... and honestly who is going to declare war on the US?

Vote Yes On Manditory Service, It Is The Only Sane Thing To Do!


Too late but we already went over this. Besides, I won't even spend 6 years in high school, which will determine what university I go to and what job I get. Seems too long.

You want 6 years service!?!
I have since revised to 2 yrs active 4 reserve in wich you must maintain military level of fitness, if not appearance.

Vote Yes On Manditory Service, It Is The Only Sane Thing To Do!

The mere fact that you said that makes debate pointless because you refuse to accept that you could be wrong.

Whoa someone is still on topic!!!!! Where have you been?

It appears that the difference between chat and forum hasn't yet dawned on you. Simply put, here you don't post "lines", but "articles".

Are you asking in which military have I served? That's Finnish Defence Forces, I'm a gunner. If I have to say anything about the army, it's that it's the most unspectacular thing around. Wake up, eat, shoot, do some guard duty, and so on. Nothing special.

Seriously, are you guys waiting for China and North Korea to pull the trigger? Otherwise, I see no need for mandatory service.

If the U.S. didn't invade other countries they would hardly need much of an army. (which may redundant because the war on iraq, a country that hardly put up much of a fight, cost way too much money for war to be common practice).

The only other reason they would need a bigger army is if they were going to be attacked... and honestly who is going to declare war on the US?

China. If the communists do not die before years end there militery will be ready to mobalize by the new year. Just a theory. Russia, not the4 U.S. but olu borders when they were a super power. North Korea, headed south again.
China Will attack in this order Taibet, India, Japan, Hawaii, Alaska, through Canada, to U.S. main land. All just theory of course.

They will be the new axis.

China. If the communists do not die before years end there militery will be ready to mobalize by the new year. Just a theory. Russia, not the4 U.S. but olu borders when they were a super power. North Korea, headed south again.
China Will attack in this order Taibet, India, Japan, Hawaii, Alaska, through Canada, to U.S. main land. All just theory of course.


If they come through Cannada, I'll be waiting for them. But China doesn't want to start WWIII right now.

It appears that the difference between chat and forum hasn't yet dawned on you. Simply put, here you don't post "lines", but "articles".

Are you asking in which military have I served? That's Finnish Defence Forces, I'm a gunner. If I have to say anything about the army, it's that it's the most unspectacular thing around. Wake up, eat, shoot, do some guard duty, and so on. Nothing special.
NO not where have you been, i did not know that anyone was still here to puyt forth views at the moment on the topic.

If they come through Cannada, I'll be waiting for them. But China doesn't want to start WWIII right now.
Then why build such a military force, except to use it. or to provide jobs for an over populated country.

China. If the communists do not die before years end there militery will be ready to mobalize by the new year. Just a theory. Russia, not the4 U.S. but olu borders when they were a super power. North Korea, headed south again.
China Will attack in this order Taibet, India, Japan, Hawaii, Alaska, through Canada, to U.S. main land. All just theory of course.

Rather than to comment on the glaring errors in that, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that USA still has the nuclear missiles to destroy China completely.

Then why build such a military force, except to use it. or to provide jobs for an over populated country.


Why do think Mexico has a military? To make jobs.

Rather than to comment on the glaring errors in that, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that USA still has the nuclear missiles to destroy China completely.
China has nuc's to. Nuclear warfare is not an option unless we are about to lose.

No, nuclear warfare isn't an option EVER.

Unless you're incredibly ignorant you'll realise that unless you have a deep hatred for humanity, nuclear war is pointless.

And the only really sensibly-governed nation with manditory service is Switzerland, which also notably has a strict policy of neutrality. If you had that, then draft everyone in permenantly for all I care.

What is that supposed to mean? As mentioned before, mandatory service is actually quite common, and it works! Norwegian forces are contributing actively in NATO operations as elite support units, for example in Afghanistan, serving as the eyes and ears of american fighter planes in Operation Enduring Freedom. We have 1 year mandatory service (with other options, like civil service, for those who aren't fit or are pacifists). 1 year isn't enough to train a battle-ready soldier, but it serves as a recruitment portal to our combat forces (fully paid, well trained soldiers serving in small elite strike groups and larger support units in IntOps) and makes sure that most adults in Norway are ready to at least serve a purpose should we ever go to full-scale war. Not that it'll ever happen.. Besides, it's a damn fine experience, and you grow a lot while you're in there.. In my opinion, every 18-20 year old should join the army, just because of that.

That being said, I'm against mandatory service. Over 50% of Norwegian soldiers serving their first year applied to join, just to make sure they got in (only about a third are drafted for service), and with our Defense Ministry now aiming for a smaller, more compact and combat-ready Defense able to serve more actively in IntOps for NATO, I really don't think we need it. All we need is a better recruitmeny policy and better terms for those who serve.

I believe the US has got it pretty much right, although our own soldiers serve on far better terms than american soldiers. Wages, benefits, duration, family support.. everything.. Not to mention the absurd operations the current US goverment deploy its forces in :/

Corp. Vea, Norwegian Defense Communications, Information and Security systems Agency (NDCISA)

Hmm... the argument of forcing people to serve a country they have chosen is rather dependent on actually being able to choose.

Since we don't get to decide where we're born (or maybe my frontend just sucks), and the vast majority of people have neither the resources to emigrate nor the pull to become a citizen of another country... your argument basically boils down to forcing people to live and die based on where they happen to be at the time they become adults.

Civil service isn't a bad idea, but the idea of forcing only certain people to do only certain things simply because of who/where they are is fundamentally unethical....

The only reason that i excluded women is because i do not believe that they belong in the military.

Um, actually...

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women20.html
http://students.uww.edu/carlsonar16/sovietwomen/1940/

70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army in WW2 fought at the front. One hundred thousand of them were decorated. Common assignments were sniper, air defense, tanker, and pilot. By all accounts they were damned good at it.

One example: Ludmilla Pavlichenko was a Soviet army sniper in WW2. She had 309 confirmed kills including 36 of German snipers. I believe this was the highest count of the entire war. Maria Morozova, another woman sniper, had 250 kills.

When the US army met with the Russian army at the Elbe river, they were rather shocked to see that the Russian tank battalion was entirely crewed by women.

A more recent example... meet the pilot of this rather badly shot up A-10 Warthog: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=7.htm&source=hawg1 Her callsign is KC ("Killer Chick"). Her plane was almost completely destroyed by AAA as you can see but she landed it anyway (no engine, no hydraulics) and was back up in another plane the next day.

Um, actually...

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women20.html
http://students.uww.edu/carlsonar16/sovietwomen/1940/

70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army in WW2 fought at the front. One hundred thousand of them were decorated. Common assignments were sniper, air defense, tanker, and pilot. By all accounts they were damned good at it.

One example: Ludmilla Pavlichenko was a Soviet army sniper in WW2. She had 309 confirmed kills including 36 of German snipers. I believe this was the highest count of the entire war. Maria Morozova, another woman sniper, had 250 kills.

When the US army met with the Russian army at the Elbe river, they were rather shocked to see that the Russian tank battalion was entirely crewed by women.
I do not live in Russia, do you? Also never said that they could not do it (women) just that i do not want them to do it.

Well, if there's one thing that Rome taught us, it's that there are absolutely no downsides to large, active armies of forcibly conscripted soldiers.

Really? If I remember correctly Rome didn't turn out that well. They became overextended and power hungry and collapsed on themselves... I'd say that's some kind of downside...

I do not live in Russia, do you? Also never said that they could not do it (women) just that i do not want them to do it.

Yeah I just gave you an all-American example too, see the edit to my post ;)

Some thoughts: one, women do not seem to enjoy fighting the way men do; two, they are better at it, on account of being more ruthless.

A friend of mine who teaches self-defense described the following... one of his students was a woman in her 30's who seemed to have a hard time with the idea of fighting or violence... so he said "Okay, just imagine I've broken into your home and am about to kill your children" at which point she grabbed one of the rubber practice knives used in exercises, let out a yell, dropped below his guard and proceeded to slash his groin area multiple times (which in real life would have cut major arteries and been quite lethal, of course).

Really? If I remember correctly Rome didn't turn out that well. They became overextended and power hungry and collapsed on themselves... I'd say that's some kind of downside...

You're not too big on sarcasm, are you?

No, nuclear warfare isn't an option EVER.

Unless you're incredibly ignorant you'll realise that unless you have a deep hatred for humanity, nuclear war is pointless.
Nuclear war is pointless, but desperate leaders will do pointless things.

You're not too big on sarcasm, are you?

Meh... helps me have fun.

I voted no. Why? Because a professional, volunteer military is far more more effective and has higher morale than draftees. Vietnam proved this fact.

However, I do believe that young Americans SHOULD receive some military training and discipline. Just incase they are needed and to smack some respect and disipline into the future of our nation.

Yeah I just gave you an all-American example too, see the edit to my post ;)

Some thoughts: one, women do not seem to enjoy fighting the way men do; two, they are better at it, on account of being more ruthless.

A friend of mine who teaches self-defense described the following... one of his students was a woman in her 30's who seemed to have a hard time with the idea of fighting or violence... so he said "Okay, just imagine I've broken into your home and am about to kill your children" at which point she grabbed one of the rubber practice knives used in exercises, let out a yell, dropped below his guard and proceeded to slash his groin area multiple times (which in real life would have cut major arteries and been quite lethal, of course).
I teach self defense and have never met a girl equally traind who could defeat a man equally trained. When training is equal and talent is equal, a man will win in a fight. Stronger, Faster, And just as ruthless about my kids protection.

I teach self defense and have never met a girl equally traind who could defeat a man equally trained.

How? Unarmed combat, men have an advantage of upper body strength, mass, etc. With any kind of weapon, things are evened out a lot. I've known many women who would win every bout against me in fencing, for example.

EDIT: Also, let me point out that your post and my reply both illustrate the typical male mano-a-mano fighting-as-a-contest kind of thinking - to which I am as susceptible as the next guy. I wuold guess most women would, if they had to, think in terms of "taking you out" not "defeating you" and they would probably use some terribly unfair and one-sided means against which all your training would be completely moot.

The male being stronger is not really the point in wars now. Women can be as well trained as men in the use of weapons, and what kind of wars are now done without weapons.
Some men will loose from women in hand-to-hand combat, some others won't. Agreed, men are gifted with stronger muscles, even better stamina maybe, and that was important in the middle-ages maybe but that is totally irrelevant in combat in these times. Even with a simple weapon such as a knife, women can be as good as men with the proper training.

But the point is: if women want equal rights as men, why not equal duties, if men are compelled into the military, why not women?
3 years seems a little too much, 3 years means that for three years living of the government and three years means that for three years the benefits from the position that those drafted boys/girls would have taken into the economy is wasted. 2 years is better I think.

Regarding compulsory service: I think there should be two distinctly separate arms, one deployable and the other not. Call them the Expeditionary Force (EF) and the Defense Force (DF). The Defense Force would be very similar to the Swiss model, service in it would not be mandatory but it would be strongly encouraged (tax breaks, etc). It would be strictly for defense on US territory. Units would be structured somewhat in parallel to civilian groupings (by workplace, club, etc) so that most people in each unit know each other in civilian life. It would be a part-time thing, taking up a week of exercises every year plus some weekends, and maybe starting with a longer initial training period. The much smaller Expeditionary Force (EF) would be entirely oriented toward rapid deployment and overseas power projection, and it would be an all-volunteer, career service similar to the present-day army (especially the more elite units). This would eliminate all the issues with National Guard people unhappy about overseas deployments etc. Oh and while we're at it there could also be a Foreign Legion of non-citizens, a full tour of duty in which earns citizenship.

compulsory service: the best way to create a paranoid country full of gun-nuts.
And then why? to overthrow some governments in countries you dont even know where it is on the map, let alone pronounce the name of?

the Defense Force (DF). The Defense Force would be very similar to the Swiss model, service in it would not be mandatory but it would be strongly encouraged (tax breaks, etc). It would be strictly for defense on US territory. Units would be structured somewhat in parallel to civilian groupings (by workplace, club, etc) so that most people in each unit know each other in civilian life. It would be a part-time thing, taking up a week of exercises every year plus some weekends, and maybe starting with a longer initial training period.

tbh i think that that idea would be a bit like throwing money in the bin.
the defense of us territory? who on earth would attack the us? the only country who would have a chance (china) would never do that!
and for terrorrist attacks? Thats just inevitable. They can be random ppl blowing up stuff and it wouldnt be a coordinated attack so the army would just be useless.

Regarding compulsory service: I think there should be two distinctly separate arms, one deployable and the other not. Call them the Expeditionary Force (EF) and the Defense Force (DF). The Defense Force would be very similar to the Swiss model, service in it would not be mandatory but it would be strongly encouraged (tax breaks, etc). It would be strictly for defense on US territory. Units would be structured somewhat in parallel to civilian groupings (by workplace, club, etc) so that most people in each unit know each other in civilian life. It would be a part-time thing, taking up a week of exercises every year plus some weekends, and maybe starting with a longer initial training period. The much smaller Expeditionary Force (EF) would be entirely oriented toward rapid deployment and overseas power projection, and it would be an all-volunteer, career service similar to the present-day army (especially the more elite units). This would eliminate all the issues with National Guard people unhappy about overseas deployments etc. Oh and while we're at it there could also be a Foreign Legion of non-citizens, a full tour of duty in which earns citizenship.
This idea is a very good idea and i fully agree. I am beginning to waver in my stance against women in the military, but as yet remain unconvinced. Mabey they could coordinate the Civil defense your (DF) seeing as how if we were invaded they would have to defend themselves anyway.

This idea is a very good idea and i fully agree. I am beginning to waver in my stance against women in the military, but as yet remain unconvinced. Mabey they could coordinate the Civil defense your (DF) seeing as how if we were invaded they would have to defend themselves anyway.

I'm still utterly confused as to what sort of battlefield you envision where hand-to-hand combat becomes a major factor.

I'm still utterly confused as to what sort of battlefield you envision where hand-to-hand combat becomes a major factor.
I was an infantry Marine, an 0311 a Rifleman. Hand to hand was my area. It does happen. You can't just bomb everything.

I was an infantry Marine, an 0311 a Rifleman. Hand to hand was my area. It does happen. You can't just bomb everything.

Isn't an infantryman sans gun rather screwed anyway? I don't understand what it is about women that you think makes them incapable of shooting other people.

Isn't an infantryman sans gun rather screwed anyway? I don't understand what it is about women that you think makes them incapable of shooting other people.
Not incapable, it is my caveman I protect women and children and old people and those who cannot do it themselves. (not that women can't) It is just my nature to put my life before that of a woman. Men are as good at women as women are men. It is just my nature. women don't need to kill thats why they have us.

Isn't an infantryman sans gun rather screwed anyway? I don't understand what it is about women that you think makes them incapable of shooting other people.
I cannot send a woman into a place knowing that she will be in danger. My preferance. My way.

I cannot send a woman into a place knowing that she will be in danger. My preferance. My way.

Who are you to make that decision? What if a woman wants to serve her country in that capacity?

Who are you to make that decision? What if a woman wants to serve her country in that capacity?
Right now i am not in a position to say no. If i ever was everyone who voted me there would have known in advance how i stand. My morality says it is wrong no matter what you want. In any area but willingly placing yourself in danger for no good reason you have all the control. But in this one it is my way weather you like it or not. I do not force you to stay here. You are free to make any other choice. I will not let you fight when there are men who can fight first.

It is my belief that military service should be compulsory for all men born in the United States. I believe that the term of service should last 3 years active, and 3 years reserve. This of course affects health care, as all military personel who serve their time will recieve Gov. Benifits. And before you say anything about the impared, there is a place for almost everyone, as not everyone has to be a fighter. This would also impact the level of education as college would become more accessable through programs like the G.I. bill.

What do you think?
reminder of the whole topic. time in service has been changed to 2 yrs active, and 4 reserve.

This idea is a very good idea and i fully agree.

Thanks.

I am beginning to waver in my stance against women in the military, but as yet remain unconvinced.

You may want to read up on cases in which women actually had a major role in combat... the Israelis in numerous conflicts, the Soviets in WW2, and a lot of guerillas (e.g. the FARK). You might change your mind. Or you might think that it is a bad idea on account of being terribly unfair to the other side ;)

If I recall in WW2 there was an elite German Fallschirmjaeger unit that parachuted into a rear area that was supposed to contain a Russian HQ... to their extremely bad luck, it contained a female AAA unit... none of the Germans survived.

Thanks.



Or you might think that it is a bad idea on account of being terribly unfair to the other side ;)


very funny. :D I know that in the past women have made great contributions, but that does not mean that they should have been there in the first place.

Vote yes for manditory service!

Vote yes for manditory service!
manditory service = poor army

tbh i think that that idea would be a bit like throwing money in the bin.
the defense of us territory? who on earth would attack the us? the only country who would have a chance (china) would never do that!
and for terrorrist attacks? Thats just inevitable. They can be random ppl blowing up stuff and it wouldnt be a coordinated attack so the army would just be useless.

The best way to prevent it from happening is if everyone knew it was completely insane to try. You say China wouldn't... well, in practice they *couldn't* (actually I reckon China couldn't even occupy Los Angeles if they landed as many forces as they wanted without being intercepted at sea)... but the question is, do they know that? If our DF was say 20-30 million and could be mobilized in two days, I think it's safe to say they wouldn't try anything.

By the way, the US is in a low-level shooting war on its own territory with unidentified people from across the Mexican border, some of which are in Mexican Army uniforms. I'm not saying anything here... but I think the DF will get plenty of experience.

The other major use for the DF would be for responding to disasters (or the aftermath of attacks)... many such scenarios require massive manpower.

Back just to check in, Intersting responses. The idea is not "dumb" just not for everyone. Other countries have manditory service laws, and they seem to me to be doing something right.
The only reason that i excluded women is because i do not believe that they belong in the military. They have better things to do than get raped, pregnant and dead. A man at 230lbs. with full training is not likely to be defeated by a woman equally trained. Size in combat does matter if the training is all the same.

The bigger they are, the more energy they consume by moving and the bigger target they are for the enemy.

No everyone today needs a little straighting out. Society is messed up. not just Punk kids. But as kids you are more likely to learn, and adapt. It is not punishment anyway, but a support of the freedom you so clearly want.

Who are you to talk about freedom when your words clearly show that you do not think that other people's lives are their own? Let's get something straight: freedom doesn't begin with forced service to another. Freedom begins when you say, "Non serviam! (I will not serve!)" and are willing to kill and die to enforce your will.

I serve no one, whether man, god or government, and I will destroy anybody who dares to enslave me. No man's cause gives him the right to use me as a tool.

Vote yes for manditory service!

You first, tough guy. I bet you haven't done a single push-up under a drill sergeant's unforgiving eye.

manditory service = poor army

Generally wrong. For smaller nations, completely untrue, especially considering the political landscape we're in right now. Again, I encourage you to actually LOOK at some of the nations with mandatory service.

Take Norway (I can only speak for my own nation) for example. We're way to small to ever hope to be able to fight off an invading force, and the chances that we'll ever actually be invaded are slim to none. What do we do? We make alliances. We're a part of NATO, and our military efforts are focused on being able to provide NATO with highly skilled, specialist forces. For example, our special forces can kick anybodys ass in maritime, winter and mountain operations. In fact, our FSK beat the crap out of SAS in a recent oil-rig excersise. I'm not saying we can match SAS in every way, they are amazing, but in certain situations, we can make a difference. That is our goal.

Very few makes it to the special units, but we still keep mandatory service. Why? 1. because army service, as it stands today, is generally percieved as an honorable and sensible period of life in Norway. It pays off greatly in respect and it's valuable in the job life afterwards. People want to do it! 2. we need them. Support personell, logistics, larger, less specialized units, medics, engineers etc etc..

I'm beginning to dig a hole here, but what I am trying to say is that, for a number of reasons, removing mandatory service is pretty much out of the question, at least in Norway. Why? Because it provides us with the troops and services we need, and it works as a recruitment base to the units serving in NATO and special operations.

Ofcourse, things are fundamentally different in a nation like the US, which insists on being able to perform full-scale military operations on their own. And I'm NOT saying that's a good thing :)

Corp. Vea - Norwegian Defense Communications, Information and Security Agency NDCISA

I vote no, as it's undemocratic, and pointless in this country (Australia)

Bwa-Ha-ha-ha!!

This is nearly as amusing as the notion of having that hick sherriff with the penchant for prisoner abuse sit in the oval office...

Bring it on! Whoo-hoo!

I honestly don't know where you're all getting these incredibly funny ideas from, people...but keep 'em coming, I could always do with a good damn laugh...!

LOL

Bwa-Ha-ha-ha!!

This is nearly as amusing as the notion of having that hick sherriff with the penchant for prisoner abuse sit in the oval office...

Bring it on! Whoo-hoo!

I honestly don't know where you're all getting these incredibly funny ideas from, people...but keep 'em coming, I could always do with a good damn laugh...!

LOL
Sums up my view aswell :p

I think that service of some type (military if some choose it, public service if you choose otherwise) is useful for getting everyone out of their home town and stupid local mindset.

Two to four years of something like this would be educational, at the very least. While I did enlist in the Army for five years (way back in the day), I think that young people in general would benefit from some type of public service (working in hospitals, road building, forest management, etc).

It's a sign of your social commitment. Maybe we shouldn't make it mandatory, but we could make it a condition of your right to vote.

So, if you don't care enough about your country to do something for it, then you wouldn't care to vote, either.

I can't see how that would hurt anything. We could find something for almost anyone to do - surely some of you wouldn't mind caring for the elderly for a few years, or teaching children to read.