There is no such a thing as a volunteer army...

[Syzygys]

...in America, at least. It is a missnomer and only idiots use it.

The correct word is PROFESSIONAL army. Once you get paid for doing a service, it is called a JOB and not a volunteer action. Working for McDonalds is not voluntering. (although not really professional either) :)

To be in the PTA is voluntering, donating blood for free is voluntering, being an organ donor is a volunteer. Being a professional soldier is deceiding on a CARRIER. Another term is mercenary,(professional soldier) like it or not. It doesn't matter if the State employs you or a private organization, by definition you are a mercenary...

Just so you know. So stop using it...

[Orleander]

volunteer army :p is different than a drafted conscripted army.

[Syzygys]

Again, it is called a professional army and that is also different, than a drafted army. :)

Start thinking outside of the box and question authority...

You don't call the police volunteer forces, do you?

[Simon Anders]

...in America, at least. It is a missnomer and only idiots use it.

The correct word is PROFESSIONAL army. Once you get paid for doing a service, it is called a JOB and not a volunteer action. Working for McDonalds is not voluntering. (although not really professional either) :)

To be in the PTA is voluntering, donating blood for free is voluntering, being an organ donor is a volunteer. Being a professional soldier is deceiding on a CARRIER. Another term is mercenary,(professional soldier) like it or not. It doesn't matter if the State employs you or a private organization, by definition you are a mercenary...

Just so you know. So stop using it... If it is a job, you can leave it. I can quit my job at McDonalds. Sure with other positions the employee and the company can have a contract with terms of notice on both sides and potential FINANCIAL penalties for breaking the contract early. But many companies try to work out a mutually beneficial split in the event the employee wants to leave before the end of a contract. The reason: it is easier and makes more sense. You want employees who believe in their work. It is poor business practice to compel people to participate and, also, it is a warning sign that something is wrong with your company if people want to leave and the only way you can staff efficiently is to compel them to stay.

[cosmictraveler]

Paying the All-Volunteer Force

More than 35 years ago, the congressionally mandated Gates Commission submitted its final report to President Richard Nixon, endorsing the establishment of a military consisting entirely of volunteers. At the time, the concept of no-draft armed forces was considered by many to be a radical idea that would prove insufficient in meeting national security needs.

According to the commission, the benefits of a volunteer military included inducing leaders to use manpower more efficiently, increasing retention, and providing a morale-boosting alternative to conscription. Forced service was "intolerable" when compared with a volunteer system that aligned more distinctly with "our basic national values."The commission went so far as to describe conscription as a tax that deprived individuals "of their freedom to pursue their careers where and how they choose—in essence their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness," concluding that "it is hard to imagine a means of imposing the cost of defense, or any other Government activity for that matter, more in conflict with accepted standards of justice, equality and freedom in the United States."

Alternatively, an all-volunteer force offered a system consistent with American principles, minimizing government interference and allowing individuals to determine their own life choices in accord with their values; but for a volunteer system to work, the historically low pay for those entering the military had to be increased to a level that could compete with civilian pay. The commission determined that until this pay gap was corrected, "an all-volunteer force cannot be realized." Increasing military compensation was therefore "a necessary price of defending [America's] peace and security."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/nationalSecurity/bg2144.cfm

[Read-Only]

...in America, at least. It is a missnomer and only idiots use it.

The correct word is PROFESSIONAL army. Once you get paid for doing a service, it is called a JOB and not a volunteer action. Working for McDonalds is not voluntering. (although not really professional either) :)

To be in the PTA is voluntering, donating blood for free is voluntering, being an organ donor is a volunteer. Being a professional soldier is deceiding on a CARRIER. Another term is mercenary,(professional soldier) like it or not. It doesn't matter if the State employs you or a private organization, by definition you are a mercenary...

Just so you know. So stop using it...

Totally, totally wrong! It isn't a matter of linguistics, it's a matter of application - and you are trying to split hairs crosswise instead of lengthwise.

What it really means - and it's clear to any adult - is a matter of choice (volunteering) and a matter of being forced (not volunteering.)

You may freely choose to participate in the PTA or not - your choice. But if you are forced into the military by a draft, you MUST either go or flee the country.

Simply put, your thoughts here are a distortion and there's really nothing to be discussed. You are just wrong and that the end of it.

[S.A.M.]

If you cannot leave it when you want to, its not a volunteer position.

[Nasor]

...in America, at least. It is a missnomer and only idiots use it.

The correct word is PROFESSIONAL army. Once you get paid for doing a service, it is called a JOB and not a volunteer action. Working for McDonalds is not voluntering. (although not really professional either) :)

To be in the PTA is voluntering, donating blood for free is voluntering, being an organ donor is a volunteer. Being a professional soldier is deceiding on a CARRIER. Another term is mercenary,(professional soldier) like it or not. It doesn't matter if the State employs you or a private organization, by definition you are a mercenary...

Just so you know. So stop using it...
HA! You have it exactly backwards. The english word "volunteer" was first used in the earth 17th century as a noun that specifically meant a person who decided to join the army on their own, rather than being conscripted. Over the centuries people started using it to describe other situations where people decided to do something of their own free will, rather than being forced. Eventually it was corrupted to the point it's at today, where often people use it to mean someone who does something without pay out of the goodness of their heart.

If you want to nitpick about the "proper" use of the word, calling an army a "volunteer army" and its soldiers "volunteers" is about the only way the word can properly be used.

[CheskiChips]

If you cannot leave it when you want to, its not a volunteer position.


So voluntary commitment isn't in your vocabulary?
S.A.M. will jump on any thread to insult America, I only hope you don't live here.

Syzgys; a proffesional army is one of mercanaries, those exist. Look at the French guard during WWII.

[Syzygys]

If it is a job, you can leave it.

Hehe, except special jobs. Like military. Or astronaut. Imagine if you have to stay at the international spacestation for 6 months, but after 2 months you "had enough" and want to leave. I don't think so.

There is a simple and very logical reason why military forces can not be left just on a moment's notice, and that is called SECURITY. End of story.

sdjhfsdfjhsdgfsjd

You didn't add anything to the discussion... :eek:

Totally, totally wrong!

Now seriously, when was the last time I was wrong? Maybe in the previous century...

It isn't a matter of linguistics,

Sure it is, that's why I posted it here. :)

It is a question of definition. Look up volunteer and professional and you will see.

What it really means - and it's clear to any adult - is a matter of choice (volunteering) and a matter of being forced (not volunteering.)

So the workers at Walmart and Burger Kings are all volunteers, I see. If one doesn't like to use professional, even non-drafted would be a better word.

Look guys, I see why they use it the way they do, but it is wrong, just like soymilk. Now you know....

P.S.: I think I found a solution, using the word "voluntereed". This indicates that it happened once and not continuously doing it so...
Also the expression "professional army" doesn't exclude governments:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/ital-s24.shtml

"Italy to create professional army" (correct usage!!!)

Another one:

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373031

"Turkey takes steps towards professional army"

Interesting, foreigners can use it correctly....:cool:

And another one, Poland:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2057658/posts

"Poland introduces professional army"

Let's not forget Sweden!:

http://www.thelocal.se/8277/20070824/

"Greens call for professional army"

[Syzygys]

So let's summarize it, if it is other countries like Sweden, Turkey, Italy or Poland, than it is a professional army, if it is the USA it is volunteer army. Got it!!!

I guess my European background is showing... :)

[CheskiChips]

If perhaps military men were paid lavishly and given incentives then it would be a profesional army. The majority of the people who join do it because they feel it's their duty to give something back to their country.

[S.A.M.]

So voluntary commitment isn't in your vocabulary?
S.A.M. will jump on any thread to insult America, I only hope you don't live here.
.

Umm I said nothing about America.

A volunteer is someone who works for a community or for the benefit of environment primarily because they choose to do so

If you cannot leave when you want to, its not a volunteer position. If I sign a contract with a company that I will work for them for a minimum of three years, thats not a volunteer position.

[Nasor]

Uh...I guess I'll point out AGAIN the English word "volunteer" originally referred explicitly to a person who chose to join the army. Which is why most dictionaries will still list "a person who joins the military of their own free will" as one of the definitions of the word, along with all the more modern meanings. Historical usage, modern dictionaries, and modern usage all seem to agree that an army made up of people who choose to join is a volunteer army.

[CheskiChips]

Uh...I guess I'll point out AGAIN the English word "volunteer" originally referred explicitly to a person who chose to join the army. Which is why most dictionaries will still list "a person who joins the military of their own free will" as one of the definitions of the word, along with all the more modern meanings. Historical usage, modern dictionaries, and modern usage all seem to agree that an army made up of people who choose to join is a volunteer army.


Nasor, it's best to give up. People enjoy hating America more than they love understanding logic.

[Simon Anders]

Hehe, except special jobs. Like military. Or astronaut. Imagine if you have to stay at the international spacestation for 6 months, but after 2 months you "had enough" and want to leave. I don't think so.

There is a simple and very logical reason why military forces can not be left just on a moment's notice, and that is called SECURITY. End of story. So when you meant professional you meant the military and spacestation occupants?

Security is not the issue. The issue is money and what it looks like if people do not want to serve more.

If the interests of the American people are served by a war, you will have enough soldiers. If you don't it is time to question issues like remuneration, the morality of the war, treatement of returning soldier, what soldiers are being encouraged to do in that war, etc.

[Simon Anders]

So the workers at Walmart and Burger Kings are all volunteers, I see. If one doesn't like to use professional, even non-drafted would be a better word.
No they have jobs,

jobs they can quit.

[S.A.M.]

Uh...I guess I'll point out AGAIN the English word "volunteer" originally referred explicitly to a person who chose to join the army. Which is why most dictionaries will still list "a person who joins the military of their own free will" as one of the definitions of the word, along with all the more modern meanings. Historical usage, modern dictionaries, and modern usage all seem to agree that an army made up of people who choose to join is a volunteer army.

Thats interesting, I did not know that. Do you have an original source? Does it say anything about commissions and ability to leave? Are mercenaries volunteers?

[Nasor]

Thats interesting, I did not know that. Do you have an original source? Does it say anything about commissions and ability to leave? Are mercenaries volunteers?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=volunteer

[S.A.M.]

Hmm were those soldiers also allowed to leave of their free will?

[Nasor]

Hmm were those soldiers also allowed to leave of their free will?
Ah, there's no argument like a semantic argument ;)

I don't know the answer to that. But I noticed that my dictionary defines "volunteer" (when used as a noun) as "A person who renders aid, performs a service, or assumes an obligation voluntarily"

The inclusion of "assumes an obligation" seems to imply that you could voluntarily commit yourself to something that you were then obligated to do (like be in the military for a certain length of time).

[Simon Anders]

Nasor, it's best to give up. People enjoy hating America more than they love understanding logic. I don't see this as an issue of hating america. It is about the ethics of a certain kind of contract. I don't assume that the contract rather than the people trying to get out of it is really American.

[S.A.M.]

Ah, there's no argument like a semantic argument ;)

I don't know the answer to that. But I noticed that my dictionary defines "volunteer" (when used as a noun) as "A person who renders aid, performs a service, or assumes an obligation voluntarily"

The inclusion of "assumes an obligation" seems to imply that you could voluntarily commit yourself to something that you were then obligated to do (like be in the military for a certain length of time).

Could be, I'm not aware of the requirements for military service in the 1600s. :p

[Syzygys]

Uh...I guess I'll point out AGAIN the English word "volunteer" originally referred

Quite honestly, we don't care about 200 years old usage. The word "gay" refered to "carefree," "happy," or "bright and showy." Interestingly, almost nobody use it that way.

SAM, you need to look up certain organizations and forces such as police, firefigthers etc. where you can not just leave them on a hunch. It doesn't make them volunteer organizations...

[Syzygys]

Hmm were those soldiers also allowed to leave of their free will?

So is a surgeon in the middle of a surgery allowed to leave??

I noticed nobody DARED to touch my argument of usage in other countries. :)

[spidergoat]

Volunteer distinguishes it from the mandatory service required in many European countries. You do volunteer to join and give up some of your basic constitutional rights, so in that sense it is different from most other jobs.

[Simon Anders]

So is a surgeon in the middle of a surgery allowed to leave??
Which would be the counterpart to leaving in the middle of a specific battle or shift. Like leaving a watch post in the middle of the night. You will find very few doctors who sign contracts that state that at the end of the contracted time the hospital can compel the doctor to serve indefinitely.

I noticed nobody DARED to touch my argument of usage in other countries. :)That is only a problem if you are obsessed with the word volunteer. My problem has been that it is an immoral contract both in practice, how easy it is to miss or underestimate - hence not good faith on the part of the 'employer' - and also in that it is similar to other clauses in contracts that can be nullified by courts. Again. I am not contending it is illegal, but that kind of clause would not be considered moral in pretty much any other 'profession'.

If an astronaut found out that the space station he was working on was being used for immoral purposes and his contracted time of service was over and he wanted to NOT sign up for another term he would probably have very good grounds for a lawsuit.

You opened the door with the 'profession' argument. I do not think it holds. Volunteer, professional army, it is immoral to force people to continue service past the originally intended time. The reasons a government has to do this or thinks it does has to do with the importance of the war, whether it has lied to citizens, how the war is being carried out, and whether the public thinks the war serves its interests. If it does that army will have enough people. Sure some may refuse for the wrong reasons, but this would be no problem in a just, relevent modern war.

[Read-Only]

So is a surgeon in the middle of a surgery allowed to leave??


Certainly!!! See, that just underscores your lack of understanding.;)

If a surgeon feels unable to complete the task for whatever reason, he/she may turn it over to another doctor - and leave. In most cases in the U.S. there is almost always a second doctor in attendance.

[Syzygys]

Volunteer distinguishes it from the mandatory service required in many European countries.

I understand, but my point is that the word professional would do the same, just like it does in everywhere else in the world. Here is a scenario what I call volunteer army:

Tomorrow the Canadians decide to attack the US. Since lots of soldiers are abroad, America would need a few extra volunteer, so people could form a volunteer army and they would be soldiers only for the time period of the conflict. After the conflict done, they would go home.

Now in my mind, THAT is a volunteer army....

P.S.: Since America tends to get its soldiers everywhere in the world, the professional soldier describe the average US soldier much better, in practice....

[Syzygys]

For education:

Certain jobs have certain special rights or obligations. For example generally police don't have the right to strike, for security reasons. Imagine a big city's police going on a 1 year strike...
Certain medical professionals can be called in duty in the case of national emergency, that is the job's obligation. Same with firefighters...
To be a professional soldier has certain obligations too, one of them not being able to leave whenever one's feel like it...

Apparently in England the police union wants to get the right to strike:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/policing-and-crime/labour-fight-back-against-police-right-strike-$1223804.htm

[Nasor]

Quite honestly, we don't care about 200 years old usage. The word "gay" refered to "carefree," "happy," or "bright and showy." Interestingly, almost nobody use it that way.
Obviously "volunteer" is used that way - it's what you're complaining about. :rolleyes:

Historical usage, modern dictionaries, and current usage all seem to agree here.

[Syzygys]

Apparently according to the dictionary the volunteer usage is still correct. My problem was/is that the word has a connotation with the service being free, and obviously soldiers in the Army are paid workers, thus that meaning doesn't apply. So I would rather use the professional soldier, which by the way an example in Miriam-Webster:

Professional:

2 a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer>
b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier>

[Fraggle Rocker]

...in America, at least. It is a missnomer and only idiots use it. The correct word is PROFESSIONAL army. Once you get paid for doing a service, it is called a JOB and not a volunteer action. Working for McDonalds is not voluntering. (although not really professional either). To be in the PTA is voluntering, donating blood for free is voluntering, being an organ donor is a volunteer. Being a professional soldier is deceiding on a CARRIER. Another term is mercenary,(professional soldier) like it or not. It doesn't matter if the State employs you or a private organization, by definition you are a mercenary. Just so you know. So stop using it...You've managed to get this hopelessly muddled and your conclusion is incorrect. Including the conclusion that the hundreds of millions of English-speakers who call America's armed forces "volunteers" are idiots, and you owe us all an apology.

I'm not quite sure where to start to unravel this mess. How about the fact that drafted soldiers are paid salaries, so they are just as much "professionals" as those who volunteer? The U.S. armed forces have used the word "volunteer" clear back into my grandfather's days in the 19th century, and I'm sure long before that. A volunteer was a guy who walked into a recruiting office and volunteered to join the service. The term was used to distinguish that guy from one they had to track down and conscript involuntarily in order to raise a big enough force to fight a war. Those guys were "conscripts" in the old days, but going back at least to WWII, they've been just "draftees."

They both get paid, so they're both professional soldiers. This terminology distinguishes the formal army, which is organized, funded and equipped by the government, from a militia or irregular force, which although voluntary, is ad hoc, provides much or all of its own gear, is not paid, and does not report to the same chain of command as the national army. These people are not considered professional soldiers and do not go through the basic training that both volunteer and conscripted members of the armed forces are required to take.

There are other types of professional soldiers, for example mercenaries. The American colonies hired mercenary soldiers to help fight the Revolutionary War. They were paid out of General Washington's budget and they reported to him. There are quite a few mercenary soldiers fighting in various battles in modern times, and they are all being paid by one side or the other.

The United States currently employs a large number of mercenaries in its unconstitutional debacle in Iraq, most notorious of which are those from Blackwater International. The government vehemently objects to calling them mercenaries and insists that they are just providing "security." However, they behave like mercenaries, inflicting more collateral damage on non-combatants than true soldiers are comfortable with, and they are treated like mercenaries, exempt from prosecution for their war crimes. Therefore, they are mercenaries: professional soldiers fighting voluntarily, but only for money rather than for a cause.If you cannot leave it when you want to, its not a volunteer position.Well that's not exactly correct. When you volunteer for a position you're free to question the terms of the employment and you choose whether or not to accept them. The laws of my country outlaw genuine, voluntary slavery: No one has the right to sell their freedom for any price. It even goes a little beyond that into the concept of indentured servitude. But if a person signs a contract and forfeits the right to cancel it before a specified period of time has lapsed, that's not quite the same thing. In the private sector he could probably get away with breaching the contract and simply paying monetary damages. But in the military he'd be prevented from breaching. This is not exactly hair-splitting. Still I think it's fair to call these idiots (hey I can throw that word around in anger too) who love our traitorous, brain-dead president so much that they're willing to kill and die to support his criminal adventures, volunteers. Our country has no draft.

[Simon Anders]

But if a person signs a contract and forfeits the right to cancel it before a specified period of time has lapsed, that's not quite the same thing. In the private sector he could probably get away with breaching the contract and simply paying monetary damages. But in the military he'd be prevented from breaching. Often in the private sector some sort of mutually agreeable solution would be found. It just doesn't look good when a company has to force people to work there. Further you want employees who want to work. If you have a systemic call for leaving before the contractual period ends, it is time to look at your business. To have a clause in the contract with the military where the persons contract can be extended ad infinitum is not moral, though I have no doubt it is legal in regard to the military.

I think a good measure of a war's relevence to its citizens, morality as a war in general and morality in how it is carried out is given a good feedback mechanism by allowing people to leave at the end of their original intended contract final date.

Hell, it makes me think a draft would be better. Make sure the children of the rich are out there as much as the poor. At least than you have a vocal, powerful feedback about stupid wars.

[Simon Anders]

Certain jobs have certain special rights or obligations. For example generally police don't have the right to strike, for security reasons. Imagine a big city's police going on a 1 year strike...Sure, but they can quit their jobs as individuals.

To be a professional soldier has certain obligations too, one of them not being able to leave whenever one's feel like it...It is legal to simply extend their terms. It is not moral.

If it were a real security risk for Americans to stay put, americans would be in line in good enough numbers. If, however, the war is serving the interests of a few people, those lines will not form. Hence the can extend your time clause is a way of avoiding having problems with a stupid war.

[Syzygys]

and you owe us all an apology.

I might. As you can see in my previous post, I started to acknowledge that the volunter army is also a valid expression. But (as usual) I still have a problem with it...

They both get paid, so they're both professional soldiers.

Aren't drafted soldiers there for a length of period? To me that would make a difference. Let's say if the draft is for 2 years, you are only a professional soldier if you stay longer voluntarily, otherwise you are doing national obligatory military service, and the money that you get can be called service fee instead of salary. The point is that being paid for draft service doesn't make you a carrier (professional) soldier.

This terminology distinguishes the formal army, which is organized, funded and equipped by the government,

The army we have in the US today is this one. This would be called the professional army, we agree on this.

...from a militia or irregular force, which although voluntary, is ad hoc, provides much or all of its own gear, is not paid, and does not report to the same chain of command as the national army.

This would be the volunteer army. So it looks like you are making MY point....Not to mention muddled the situation. :)

Now I don't really want to go into politics, so let's just stay on the linguistic side. So how come other countries call their national army professional army, and not volunteer army? After all their soldiers are their voluntarily too...

[Fraggle Rocker]

Aren't drafted soldiers there for a length of period? To me that would make a difference. Let's say if the draft is for 2 years, you are only a professional soldier if you stay longer voluntarily, otherwise you are doing national obligatory military service, and the money that you get can be called service fee instead of salary. The point is that being paid for draft service doesn't make you a carrier (professional) soldier.Volunteers only serve for a limited time too.

There are a variety of definitions of the word "professional." But what all the lists have in common is that at or very near the top is the concept of "livelihood." A professional in any activity earns money for performing it. As a musician I run into this all the time. Even though music is not my full-time career, when I play I'm usually paid, so I'm a professional musician. The guys who play for free are amateurs. Sometimes we play charity gigs, but the contracts are carefully worded so as not to give the impression that we're playing for free: We are donating our time to the cause.

"Professional" can also carry an inference of training and discipline. Again, this does not set draftees apart from volunteers in the army. They both go through basic training and they're both well disciplined--to the extreme degree that they would sacrifice their lives for the cause. It can, however, set them both apart from the "volunteer" soldiers in a militia, who may lack both training and discipline.

Volunteer, draftee, professional, militia, mercenary... all of these words have subtle differences in meaning, and some of them overlap.

As for length of service, both volunteers and draftees in the U.S. Army and other services serve for limited tours of duty in peacetime and for indefinite tours in wartime. The fact that in peacetime volunteers are discharged after four years and draftees serve only two is hardly a significant enough difference to determine who's made it a "career." You'd have "volunteer" only being legitimate for they guys who keep re-upping until they retire. And as much as I hate war even I think that does a disservice to the guys who volunteer to go to war and then run back to civilian life as soon as the war is over.Now I don't really want to go into politics, so let's just stay on the linguistic side. So how come other countries call their national army professional army, and not volunteer army? After all their soldiers are their voluntarily too...But you can't get very far into linguistics before you run into politics. Each country forms its own linguistic community and builds its own dialect. The various English-speaking countries disagree on a lot of terminology, so why should they be any different when it comes to the politics of war? Not to mention, I'm sure some of the words you see applied to armies have been translated from other languages. The communist countries were notorious for redefining words.

[temur]

As for length of service, both volunteers and draftees in the U.S. Army and other services serve for limited tours of duty in peacetime and for indefinite tours in wartime.

That means pretty much indefinite :cool:

[Read-Only]

So how come other countries call their national army professional army, and not volunteer army? After all their soldiers are their voluntarily too...

Yet another major misunderstanding on your part. There are several countries that force you into military service. Three that come to mind right of the top of my head are Switzerland, Israel and Iraq. The age varies but is usually around 18 to 21.

Apparently, you aren't any better informed about the "workings" of the world than you are about proper usage of language. ;)

[Read-Only]

That means pretty much indefinite :cool:

Not really. Historically, the U.S. has not been engaged in a war nearly as much as otherwise.

[Syzygys]

Man, you are 1 inch away entering my Ignore list...

There are several countries that force you into military service.

What the fuck this has to do with anything? I quoted 4 different websites refering to 4 different European countries' armies as professional armies and they are exactly the same as the US army in the way they get their soldiers. So argue why the US army shouldn't be called professional, the same way?

Now try really hard, because you will have only 1 more chance....

[Syzygys]

Fraggle, take it as a honest feedback, but you talk too much and quite occassionally you agree with the person you are trying to refute. Just something to think about...


There are a variety of definitions of the word "professional." But what all the lists have in common is that at or very near the top is the concept of "livelihood."

OK, so we agree. Unless you are trying to argue that US soldiers are underpaid, you are just proving why we should use the professional adjective, instead of volunteer.

"Professional" can also carry an inference of training and discipline. Again, this does not set draftees apart from volunteers in the army.

They use professional in the meaning of carrier soldier.

I did 1 year of mandatory national military service. In no way was I a professional soldier during that year, even when I did get paid some kind of pocket money, which was not sufficient to make a livelihood. Had I decided to extend this service, and sign up, I would have become a professional soldier and I would have got a decent salary, not pocket money. I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Now I will argue against my OP. One could have pointed out the dictionary usage of volunteer, because there is a special military usage. I guess Nasor was correct in this regard. That is the reason why we don't call people working for fastfood restaurants volunteer, because the special military meaning doesn't apply.

You still haven't addressed the European usage of professional army, it looks like they seem to agree on it and they prefer it to volunteer....

[Nasor]

So I would rather use the professional soldier, which by the way an example in Miriam-Webster:

Professional:

2 a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer>
b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier>
Most armies are made up of people who are only in for 2-4 years. Some people stay in longer and make it a career, but most don't. If you mean for "professional" to imply that people make it a long-term career, then I don't know of any countries with a "professional" army. Under that definition, it's the people who call armies "professional" when in fact the vast majority of their soldiers only serve for a few years who are using language wrong.

Virtually every army pays its soldiers regardless of whether or not they were conscripted and whether or not they want to make the military a career, so using that as a standard for determining whether or not an army is "professional" is also pointless.

About the only way you could usefully apply the "professional" to an army is if you use it to mean an army that takes its job seriously and is good at what they do. As in "their conduct was very professional." But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not the soldiers were conscripted or even whether or not they were paid.

The point of calling an army a "volunteer army" is to differentiate between armies where people join voluntarily vs. ones where people are conscripted. You can call an army full of people who joined voluntarily a "professional" army if you want, but I don't think that you're really using the word properly according to its standard definition.

[Fraggle Rocker]

The bottom line is that the United States deliberately coined the phrase "all-volunteer army" to make the point that it's possible to have a defense force without conscription. We went through some turbulent times in the 1960s and 70s over the draft. People burned their ID cards, some emigrated to Canada and Sweden, a few went to prison. We felt that having a draft enabled the government to go to war whenever it would profit the corporations that support it, with no regard for the will of the people.

With no draft, they're having a much more difficult time today with their little unconstitutional adventure in Iraq. They can't get as many soldiers as they need to occupy the entire Middle East and restart the Crusades.

This choice of words means something very important to Americans.

[Read-Only]

Most armies are made up of people who are only in for 2-4 years. Some people stay in longer and make it a career, but most don't. If you mean for "professional" to imply that people make it a long-term career, then I don't know of any countries with a "professional" army. Under that definition, it's the people who call armies "professional" when in fact the vast majority of their soldiers only serve for a few years who are using language wrong.

Virtually every army pays its soldiers regardless of whether or not they were conscripted and whether or not they want to make the military a career, so using that as a standard for determining whether or not an army is "professional" is also pointless.

About the only way you could usefully apply the "professional" to an army is if you use it to mean an army that takes its job seriously and is good at what they do. As in "their conduct was very professional." But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not the soldiers were conscripted or even whether or not they were paid.

The point of calling an army a "volunteer army" is to differentiate between armies where people join voluntarily vs. ones where people are conscripted. You can call an army full of people who joined voluntarily a "professional" army if you want, but I don't think that you're really using the word properly according to its standard definition.

I agree completely.

The whole problem is that he doesn't truly understand the meaning of the word "professional" at all. The ONLY soldiers that meet that true definition are the ones that have chosen to make a career in the military and mercenaries who are up for hire by any government - as long as the price is right.

Some countries may choose to call their armed forces 'professional' but that's a gross misuse of the term.

And that's the extent of it - period.

[Fraggle Rocker]

The whole problem is that he doesn't truly understand the meaning of the word "professional" at all. The ONLY soldiers that meet that true definition are the ones that have chosen to make a career in the military and mercenaries who are up for hire by any government - as long as the price is right.In the capitalist paradise of America, the ONLY definition of "professional" is someone who is sufficiently competent in an activity that people will pay him for his work. As I pointed out, I'm a professional musician even though I only play a few times a year, because I play well enough for people to pay me.

Yes, career soldiers and mercenaries are certainly professionals because they're paid for their services. But so are the people who volunteer for a four-year enlistment, and so are the draftees who are conscripted into a two-year enlistment. Both types of soldiers are given sufficient training to do the job satisfactorily and to qualify for payment.Some countries may choose to call their armed forces 'professional' but that's a gross misuse of the term. And that's the extent of it - period.You don't get to make these decisions, sorry. The people who comprise the United States armed forces are professionals, even though the vast majority of them will leave the service as soon as they're allowed to.

I don't recommend that you walk into a bar near a U.S. military base and attempt to pursue your argument. :)

[Read-Only]

Yes, career soldiers and mercenaries are certainly professionals because they're paid for their services. But so are the people who volunteer for a four-year enlistment, and so are the draftees who are conscripted into a two-year enlistment. Both types of soldiers are given sufficient training to do the job satisfactorily and to qualify for payment.You don't get to make these decisions, sorry. The people who comprise the United States armed forces are professionals, even though the vast majority of them will leave the service as soon as they're allowed to.

I don't recommend that you walk into a bar near a U.S. military base and attempt to pursue your argument. :)

I wouldn't hesitate to go into a bar near the base OR a PX or beer garden ON base and say that, thank you very little, Fraggle. I spent three years in the army ( I wasn't drafted) and your "vast majority" is a gross understatement. Contrary to what you might think, in excess of 90% had NO plans of remaining in the service. Even among those like myself that had volunteered.

And I also dispute your broad usage of the term to include everyone who is paid to perform a job/service. The kid of 15 that I pay to cut my grass sure isn't a professional - and neither are many of the people who work for lawn-care companies. The only ones who could be considered such are generally the owners/operators of such companies and the specific individuals who have DECIDED to make it their profession. The rest are just common workers - and come and go like 90% of the people in the armed services do. It's only the hard-core 10% and mercenaries that qualify for the label 'professional.'