Conquer Club

I was reading the thread with the question asking whether you would comply if drafted, and I decided that I would post my own on a similar subject. - Universal Conscription

For the sake of this question please disregard the current geopolitical situation. I think everybody's opinions of the situation are pretty well set and have been expressed thoroughly. I am hoping for opinions on the Idea of Universal Conscription not just Bush/Military/Dirty Liberal/Evil USA/USA Hating Foreigner/Redneck Facist/etc. bashing.

Here is the Question- Should the United States have a universal conscription policy?

My opinion (though I am open to other ideas)- Yes
I think the US should though I think that there should be other options for people not interested in the military (health services, environmental conservation, education, internal infrastructure, emergency response and the like).

In my opinion one of the problems with the United States today (there are many and there always will be-just like everywhere else) is that we feel entitled and don't feel like we owe anything to the country as a whole. We have become the priviledged rich kids of the world (we have plenty of company). The tradition of service to country is in a large part dead or dying. The Elite don't send their kids to the military and the politicians increasingly pander to the money and do only what they think will get them elected or keep them in office. Universal Conscription would in my opinion help bring back some pride and a feeling of mutual accomplishment. I could go on but I already know what I think...

Any other opinions out there? (Non-US please join in especially those of you who have a Universal Conscription set up.)

I wouldn't want to be forced in to doing national service (universal conscription), think it's a better idea to just have the ones that actually want to do it.

isnt what your saying pretty close to that thing where people are forced into careers whether they like it or not?(Communism i think)

raith wrote:I was reading the thread with the question asking whether you would comply if drafted, and I decided that I would post my own on a similar subject. - Universal Conscription

For the sake of this question please disregard the current geopolitical situation. I think everybody's opinions of the situation are pretty well set and have been expressed thoroughly. I am hoping for opinions on the Idea of Universal Conscription not just Bush/Military/Dirty Liberal/Evil USA/USA Hating Foreigner/Redneck Facist/etc. bashing.

Here is the Question- Should the United States have a universal conscription policy?

My opinion (though I am open to other ideas)- Yes
I think the US should though I think that there should be other options for people not interested in the military (health services, environmental conservation, education, internal infrastructure, emergency response and the like).

In my opinion one of the problems with the United States today (there are many and there always will be-just like everywhere else) is that we feel entitled and don't feel like we owe anything to the country as a whole. We have become the priviledged rich kids of the world (we have plenty of company). The tradition of service to country is in a large part dead or dying. The Elite don't send their kids to the military and the politicians increasingly pander to the money and do only what they think will get them elected or keep them in office. Universal Conscription would in my opinion help bring back some pride and a feeling of mutual accomplishment. I could go on but I already know what I think...

Any other opinions out there? (Non-US please join in especially those of you who have a Universal Conscription set up.)

you really need to get out more...

Which part of the universe would i be conscripted to, and would i get a laser gun ?

Blastshot wrote:isnt what your saying pretty close to that thing where people are forced into careers whether they like it or not?(Communism i think)

No I dont think it is like that. they are not being forced into careers. Universal Conscription / National Service is usually for a set time period (one or two years) when people are young (18 to 21 years old). At least that is the assumption I am going by. I would not think it would be a good idea to tell people to chose between the military or a set choice of careers that they would be tied to for the rest of thier lives. But a year or two doing something for your country while getting paid, learning skills, getting exposure to things that you otherwise may not have a chance to experience. I think that sounds like a good thing to have (depending of course on how it is set up)

Huckleberryhound wrote:Which part of the universe would i be conscripted to, and would i get a laser gun ?

no laser gun for you but if you are lucky you might get into the Guiness quality assurance department or the magically delicious lucky charms directorate

raith wrote:

Huckleberryhound wrote:Which part of the universe would i be conscripted to, and would i get a laser gun ?

no laser gun for you but if you are lucky you might get into the Guiness quality assurance department or the magically delicious lucky charms directorate

I aint Irish, dingus.

Well,here's my two cents.I live in Finland,which is in Northern Europe,and we have a universal conscription here,mainly because of our history.Service in the military became mandatory in the year 1871,while Finland was still under the rule of Russia, by the order of Russian tsar.

When Russia had had 2 revolutions,and was weakened by WWI,Finland declared independence in year 1917.The universal conscription stayed in effect,and a constitution was set about it.

Every man in draft age ( 18 ) must serve in the Finnish military for 180-360 days,or alternatively perform civil service if their religious or ethical beliefs prevents them from serving in the military.

Allthough we are not taking part in any war,live in a time of peace,and haven't joined NATO,we must hold on to our defence system as it is,constantly weary of the instability and possible threat of our Eastern neighbour.

The Finnish defence is based on universal conscription,and 80% of the draft-aged men perform their service in the military.Personally,I think it is a rite of passage for young Finnish men,a place of personal growth,both physically and mentally.It keeps most of the nations youth reminded about our history,as well as educates and raises them to be men.So,I'm all for it.

I myself have already done my part.
Cheers,Heretic,reserve corporal,Finnish Artillery.

Huckleberryhound wrote:

raith wrote:

Huckleberryhound wrote:Which part of the universe would i be conscripted to, and would i get a laser gun ?

no laser gun for you but if you are lucky you might get into the Guiness quality assurance department or the magically delicious lucky charms directorate

I aint Irish, dingus.

Never said you were, mingus

f*ck no.

And if there was, I'd hightail it.

It's a violation of the 4th, 14th, and 9th amendments.
It's a violation of military ethics.
It's a violation of what this country stands for.

Heretic wrote:Well,here's my two cents.I live in Finland,which is in Northern Europe,and we have a universal conscription here,mainly because of our history.Service in the military became mandatory in the year 1871,while Finland was still under the rule of Russia, by the order of Russian tsar.

When Russia had had 2 revolutions,and was weakened by WWI,Finland declared independence in year 1917.The universal conscription stayed in effect,and a constitution was set about it.

Every man in draft age ( 18 ) must serve in the Finnish military for 180-360 days,or alternatively perform civil service if their religious or ethical beliefs prevents them from serving in the military.

Allthough we are not taking part in any war,live in a time of peace,and haven't joined NATO,we must hold on to our defence system as it is,constantly weary of the instability and possible threat of our Eastern neighbour.

The Finnish defence is based on universal conscription,and 80% of the draft-aged men perform their service in the military.Personally,I think it is a rite of passage for young Finnish men,a place of personal growth,both physically and mentally.It keeps most of the nations youth reminded about our history,as well as educates and raises them to be men.So,I'm all for it.

I myself have already done my part.
Cheers,Heretic,reserve corporal,Finnish Artillery.

Not saying it is wrong, but that is your culture,in america its just not our culture.

Blastshot wrote:

Heretic wrote:Well,here's my two cents.I live in Finland,which is in Northern Europe,and we have a universal conscription here,mainly because of our history.Service in the military became mandatory in the year 1871,while Finland was still under the rule of Russia, by the order of Russian tsar.

When Russia had had 2 revolutions,and was weakened by WWI,Finland declared independence in year 1917.The universal conscription stayed in effect,and a constitution was set about it.

Every man in draft age ( 18 ) must serve in the Finnish military for 180-360 days,or alternatively perform civil service if their religious or ethical beliefs prevents them from serving in the military.

Allthough we are not taking part in any war,live in a time of peace,and haven't joined NATO,we must hold on to our defence system as it is,constantly weary of the instability and possible threat of our Eastern neighbour.

The Finnish defence is based on universal conscription,and 80% of the draft-aged men perform their service in the military.Personally,I think it is a rite of passage for young Finnish men,a place of personal growth,both physically and mentally.It keeps most of the nations youth reminded about our history,as well as educates and raises them to be men.So,I'm all for it.

I myself have already done my part.
Cheers,Heretic,reserve corporal,Finnish Artillery.

Not saying it is wrong, but that is your culture,in america its just not our culture.

What happened to the american tradition of service? and how could it be brought back?

Noooo, its stupid. Not to mention, What of the people who were born unable to do the conscription because of a disease, retardation, or mutilation. Then, its no longer UNIVERSAL CONSCRIPTION. But instead, UNIVERSAL CONSCRIPTION*

*With exceptions


and of course, people would find a way to utilize those exceptions, which I think is even a worse Idea than what we have already.


On the other hand, I Think there could be more done to try to get people to join military or other suchs groups and organizations. Mandatory speeches for children and teenagers where a representative from said organization goes and talks about what their group is all about. Not recruiting so much as informing.

raith wrote:

Blastshot wrote:

Heretic wrote:Well,here's my two cents.I live in Finland,which is in Northern Europe,and we have a universal conscription here,mainly because of our history.Service in the military became mandatory in the year 1871,while Finland was still under the rule of Russia, by the order of Russian tsar.

When Russia had had 2 revolutions,and was weakened by WWI,Finland declared independence in year 1917.The universal conscription stayed in effect,and a constitution was set about it.

Every man in draft age ( 18 ) must serve in the Finnish military for 180-360 days,or alternatively perform civil service if their religious or ethical beliefs prevents them from serving in the military.

Allthough we are not taking part in any war,live in a time of peace,and haven't joined NATO,we must hold on to our defence system as it is,constantly weary of the instability and possible threat of our Eastern neighbour.

The Finnish defence is based on universal conscription,and 80% of the draft-aged men perform their service in the military.Personally,I think it is a rite of passage for young Finnish men,a place of personal growth,both physically and mentally.It keeps most of the nations youth reminded about our history,as well as educates and raises them to be men.So,I'm all for it.

I myself have already done my part.
Cheers,Heretic,reserve corporal,Finnish Artillery.

Not saying it is wrong, but that is your culture,in america its just not our culture.

What happened to the american tradition of service? and how could it be brought back?

A long, bloody war.

Of course,I am not saying that what we have in Finland,could be applied that easily anywhere else.Every country has it's own culture and history.I gave my opinion,because someone wanted to know about how it works outside of US.

"Time for personal growth", heretic? Well, maybe, I grew to be even more of a pacifist than I was beforehand. btw, don't let the flag next to my name deceive you.

If they instituted it, there would be less people that would hightail it to Canada than you think.

Because, everybody would be doing it, the government would make pretty heavy penalties for dodging it, and who REALLY wants to spend the rest of their lives in another country.

And it's no more unconstitutional than the draft.

And for what it's worth, it would serve to get young people more involved in the political process.

I think it would be a great idea! Depending of course on all the regulations and tweek and peeking to bring it to life.

I like the thought of it and honestly feel that everyone who lives in this country should have to give back to it wether they want to or not. I think the pros would heavily out weigh the cons and would definitely help the youth learn and focus (if even shortly) on something other than themselves. The biggest problem I see with it would be a 2 year "program" interfering with college...

I would also like to see a mandatory morning physical training routine a part of the criteria because todays youth is just filled with lazy ass spoiled kids who don't want to work and get paid $20+ an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

I personally don't think there’s much of a need for a standing army in today’s society (speaking as a UK citizen). I can see a possible need for a small cadre of special forces and perhaps a larger TA (UK equivalent of the National Guard I think).

I think any move towards an increased military creates an atmosphere of militeristicness and jingoism in the wider population and also of fear and paranoia in the surrounding nations - leading to an increase in tensions.

I would strongly oppose any policy to bring back National service here in the UK and refuse to serve in it.

flashleg8 wrote:I personally don't think there’s much of a need for a standing army in today’s society (speaking as a UK citizen). I can see a possible need for a small cadre of special forces and perhaps a larger TA (UK equivalent of the National Guard I think).

I think any move towards an increased military creates an atmosphere of militeristicness and jingoism in the wider population and also of fear and paranoia in the surrounding nations - leading to an increase in tensions.

I would strongly oppose any policy to bring back National service here in the UK and refuse to serve in it.

I agree that there is not a need for a large standing Professional military. I was thinking that the military portion of the National Service / Universal Conscription would be mainly to create a large basically militarily trained portion of the population that could be called on when needed, therefore allowing for a considerably smaller standing Professional military for purpose of training and maintaining a quick response force. Plus I think that if the decision makers knew that if we got involved in something then everybody including their loved ones stood a chance of being called up then they would be a bit more cautious in what we get involved in. As it is now, the professional military is made up of primarily the lower economic classes and the voluteer reserve is mostly made up of the same with probably a bit more even distribution.

You said you would be opposed the the national service being brought back in the UK. Did there used to be a national service? and if so what happened to it?

raith wrote:
I was thinking that the military portion of the National Service / Universal Conscription would be mainly to create a large basically militarily trained portion of the population that could be called on when needed, therefore allowing for a considerably smaller standing Professional military for purpose of training and maintaining a quick response force.

I see where you’re coming from, kind of the Israeli model. and I also take your point that it might make people think twice as they won't feel so removed from the battlefield - but I still think that intensively training the civilian population to a military standard would make these people more gung-ho and likely to want to use military force as a diplomatic tool.
My basis for this argument is really judging the opinion of ex-service men (in the UK and US) who are generally in favour of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and seem more likely to push for a military option in other "Rogue States". I admit that this is not a scientific poll - merely my experience talking to squaddies I know and people online. Perhaps other people don't experience this? Or perhaps this is self fulfilling as the kind of people who currently go into the military are those most likely to favour strong military presence? If so then your solution might be more appealing - as it might potentially calm this current "hawkish" attitude (as you suggested).

raith wrote:You said you would be opposed the national service being brought back in the UK. Did there used to be a national service? and if so what happened to it?

Yes. Conscription was reintroduced in the Second World War (was introduced in the UK for the first time during the Great War) and after the war finished in 1945 the troops were desperate to come home, leaving a massive shortfall in the armed forces. Troops were still required in large numbers for policing areas of the world after the war (Germany etc) and for postings throughout the Empire. Many rebel actions were occurring in the post war period as the breakup of the Empire hastened and a constant supply of troops was required. The trained troops had no stomach for anymore protracted periods of overseas duties so a compulsory period of National Service for all young men was introduced.
This was finally abolished in the late 50's (I'm not sure of the exact date).

MeDeFe wrote:"Time for personal growth", heretic? Well, maybe, I grew to be even more of a pacifist than I was beforehand. btw, don't let the flag next to my name deceive you.

Of course the experience is individual for everyone,and I don't want to blame or bring down anyone for not thinking well about national service.Works for some,doesn't for others.

Before my military service,I was a teenager without any direction in life.I was angry,lost and maybe a bit self-destructive after taking a lot of shit during my mid-teens.Army changed me,for the better.I grew up,got a grip of myself and I am thankful for that.

"I see where you’re coming from, kind of the Israeli model. and I also take your point that it might make people think twice as they won't feel so removed from the battlefield - but I still think that intensively training the civilian population to a military standard would make these people more gung-ho and likely to want to use military force as a diplomatic tool."

Good point about people in the military tending towards militaristic solutions, but I think you may right on the point that that may be because the military life tends to attract a certain type of person. The National Service Model that I was thinking of included a non military aspect as well- giving people a more of a choice of how they serve and in what function. That may mean that those that serve in the military will still tend towards military solutions but I think it would moderate it a bit. I dont know, maybe not. Regardless of who serves in the military there will always be a range of attitude among a population from extreme to extreme. In general I think that if more people had a direct stake in the successes and the hardships of keeping a country secure, safe, and working both internally and externally then there would be an overall moderation of attitudes and hopefully and influx of common sense. ... but people are people

Heretic wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:"Time for personal growth", heretic? Well, maybe, I grew to be even more of a pacifist than I was beforehand. btw, don't let the flag next to my name deceive you.

Of course the experience is individual for everyone,and I don't want to blame or bring down anyone for not thinking well about national service.Works for some,doesn't for others.

Before my military service,I was a teenager without any direction in life.I was angry,lost and maybe a bit self-destructive after taking a lot of shit during my mid-teens.Army changed me,for the better.I grew up,got a grip of myself and I am thankful for that.

... I voted no, as it seems unnecessary, yet I see your point here and I've seen it in living color.

... Koreans, to a man, must sign on for military service... I think at age 18 (could be off there, but they're young). Japanese on the other hand... military service is an absolutely alien concept to 99% or more of the population (Japan has a very small "Self-Defense Force").

... I've known many Koreans and I know many Japanese (I live here). Korean guys are men. These guys have served in one of the toughest militaries in the world. They are mature adults and they handle themselves as such. Japanese, on the other hand... I know guys in their 40's who come across with the maturity of teens. Certainly not all, but certainly a high percentage of young Japanese men tend to be soft, quite spoiled, and still very dependent on their parents.

... That said, there are exceptions in all cases, of course.

...