POLL: Conscription

Remove all ads!

Yet slowing down the enemy did not change the end result. Even if they had conscription in place, I would happily place money that the technology superior country would come out on top, if backed by the right finances (this case the USA).

Do you expect a war like WWII ever to happen again? Anything anywhere near its standards? I know I don't - but then, I guess people said the same thing about the Great War, the war to end all wars.

And sorry AMaster, I'm really not sure what you're saying there.

 

You say civil service or military service dont´force anyone to make serius adjustments of thier life? well i went down 20% in pay during military service and i wasn't payed well, several of the other people i was in with, worked as carpenters and such like and lost over 50% income pr month during thier military service. I dont know where you life, but such an income cut is hard when you have your own appartment.

Secondly for me it affectly ment i had to take a forced break from studies, i could have prostponed it to after the university, but at that time i would be 26 years old and even worse posisted with the economical cut.

 

I certainly am not naive enough to believe that Finns or Europeans in general have fought their last war. It may take centuries or it may take fifty years but there will be war again on European soil.

It did so in Vietnam and it did so in winter war.

@Equester

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I stated that civil-service requires less adjustment than military service. I never said that military service does not required adjustments, which it obviously does quite a lot. The adjustments with civil-service are mostly financial and to those who study the financial adjustments should not be all that great.

 

my point was that both requires great adjustment, both require financial adjustment, which for many is quite the hardest, sorry but i din't find the days in mili hard, just long, with way to much wasted time.

Secondly while i was a student or rather between studies when i got in, many people are not. a lot in the danish military, goes in after the gradute from some from of cerpenter work, which they mainly due around the age of 18-20. these people get a hard financial cut (they literaly loose 50% or more each months, thats hard when you dont life home), which could be avoided by making the military completely voulentary.

thirdly i cant really see why you want the civil service to be longer then military service, other then as a punishment for not going in the military. which affecefly make that choice unequal.

 

IMO conscription is self-defeatist...because there is no point in making people fight who don't want to...

You need to be motivated and sufficiently invested to put your life on the line and fight for your country...being forced to do that means you are just going to do a crap job...

 

I really do not know anything about the Danish army nor how it works so I can't really comment about it. The military service is different in different countries.

In Finland the government provides all you need to live during the time of your military service, you get a very small basic salary for each day (2.8euros I think) which is enough to buy you food when at home. They also sponsor trips home and pay your rent, so really the financial cut is irrelevant since you're back to as it was before when you get out.

Civil-service requires no other than financial adjustment. It does not require you to live in a barracks, and get used to the military lifestyle which is very different from that which you enjoy in the civillian life. It should be longer because the work hours are shorter than in the army. In the army you are basically in service 24/7 barring the weekends when you get leaves but that's not really guaranteed allways. In civil-service you have same kind of hours as in normal work. I really do not consider 25/7 service in six months and 8 hours service five days a week for six months to be equal, and I don't get how it possibly could even be equal. When they set up camps for civil-service workers where they have to live 24/7 and otherwise have similar daily routines as in the military then I can agree with that.

 

Having served in an all-volunteer force, I would not want to serve in a conscripted force.

However, I believe every young man and woman should be required to do service for their world, country, community, or religion.

That would mean a system where there would be choices such as:

Religious mission.
Peace Corps.
City service to include fire fighting, police, parks district, hospital 'candy striper' and shelters.
State forestry department.
Department of Interior (national parks).
Department of Defense.
Plus many more that I just can't think of right now.

Some of these would provide pay, some would not. But all would count toward 'conscription' requirements.

 

Why? I serve my country just fine by doing the job that I do. As a teenager, I had the important job of working in the supermarket. That is a vital role to the smooth running of the community. Who is to say that being a missionary or a cannon fodder soldier is more important than ensuring that everybody has access to fresh food in an orderly manner?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Harbourboy, civilians are not useless, far from it!

 

Ah, yes. You quite succinctly put forward the philosophy that significantly hindered volunteerism (a program promoted by Colin Powell). It seems that people who have never given back to the community, can never see that paying taxes and being a law-abiding citizen is not enough for the community to prosper.

One of the biggest problems throughout America is the growing trend of people being self-absorbed -- 'if it doesn't impact me, it's not my problem.' The inner-city schools suck but it's not a big issue for the suburbs (which is where the affluent live). There are children living in poverty without proper clothing or enough food (children starve to death and freeze to death every year), but it's not a problem to most Americans because we don't see it.

Without volunteerism and a connection to the community at large too many people just wallow in their own apathy -- they don't vote for measures to help, they don't volunteer to help, they don't want to know. In many people's mind, the government should be taking care of the problem -- after all, that's what taxes are for. The big misconception they have is there are not enough dollars and not enough people helping to fix the problems.

By having people get involved early in their lives I believe it will provide a basis for what they do in the future. Otherwise, apathy will continue to hold America (and the entire world) by the throat.

 

Civil-service is work without pay and you either work or go to jail. It has a name too: slavery. You get no compensation for your work and if you refuse to work, there are consequences. That is how Finland treats its citizens.

Don't forget that civil-service requires several things: a) an apartment, b) rent/expenses paid, c) a public institute willing to take you, d) participation to a month long "education" program in barrack -like enviroment, and e) doing your job, or else... This means that you have to forsake your previous job, city, apartment, and livelihood in search of a new one for the period of the service. And to crown it, the money earned by the work goes to the same government that decided to punish you for not going to military.

What EU and UN said is revelant, since it is true. Finland has some serious issues it refuses to fix. This, certainly, can't do much good for the public image of the country.

 

I could agree upon your definition on civil-service and it needs a big reform, because it's in no way educational and therefore just a useless way to compensate the more useful military service.

However I will have to say something about the points you presented so that you won't be giving the wrong picture how things work here. First of all the government pays your rent so that's not a problem and you recieve that which someone who is unemployed would recieve as daily support which in this country is more than enough to support your life and none of this goes to rent, so financially you're not much worse off than those doing the military service if not even better off. Also you're previous employer has no right to cut your contract so after the civil-service the work would go on as usual.

Neither have yet to openly condemn it. Finland has sat in the human rights council of the UN several times, this would be impossible if they saw us as an active criminal against human rights which just goes to show that no-one is really taking the charges seriously.

 

Yeah, but it's not volunteerism if you make everyone do it!

 

I never actually bought this theory about military service being slavery. It's something done for the common good and protection against hostile intrusions, not to profit anyone. I believe in Denmark you also have mandatory education, is this too slavery? The child nor his/hers parents have any right to decide otherwise. The child must go to school until he or she is seventeen years. I don't hear anyone calling that slavery.

Conscription only takes a fraction of your lifetime anyway. It's not like you're soldier for life. Also while you might be doing much better good in your civillian life, will the case be the same in times of war? I doubt it.

 

If military service is all so la-do-da wonderful, then people would do it voluntarily. The fact that none of us want to be army people kind of tells me that it's not a good thing, therefore I don't want to be forced to do it. Again, I will add that I would be useless as a soldier anyway, so there would be little point in conscripting me.

 

Short version: manpower is at least as important as money and technology when fighting a war.

 

Most countries have conscription laws in case of war anyway. Military service is preparing the people for the worst. It's not "wonderful" in the way that I would have done it if it was completley voulentary. Not just worth it from my personal perspective. After all why should I have to fight if my neighbour does not? There are very few people who would actually like war, I certainly would not want it. But then, if you don't want to fight then how do you expect someone to fight for you? Do you expect finding protection in some other country or do you believe the occupiers will be nice enough to let you go on with your life as you used to?

 

If my country got invaded, then it wouldn't matter one bit whether I fought in the army or not, because we'd get taken over anyway. So, I'd either just bow down to the new rules of the new government (good luck to anyone who actually wants to be in the government) or if it was someone really evil and Hitler-like who wanted to kill everyone, then I'd get killed anyway - which is the same result as if I had gone and become an army man. So, it does seem a tad pointless for me to be conscripted into the army.

 

As Ragusa said that is not a very healthy attitude to think that defeat would be inevitable anyhow. There has been quite a few victories against overwhelming odds and while those odds might not be that great they are much better than the other option of falling to the enemy and their designs without ever putting up a fight. When someone invades it's quite reasonable to think that they don't have the good of the people in their mind.