02-18-08, 03:01 AM #1
I was talking to my husband and son early this morning, and i think that they should bring back nation service, there are a couple of reasons why i think this,
1. It will teach children, dicapline
2. It will keep them of the streets upseting people.
3. it will boost the numbers of the army.
now i am not saying thay willl have to be in the army all they're lifes, i think that they should do a year or two. If when they leave school, and they dont go to collage, university, or go into work, then into the army they go. It will teach the kids, about life skills.
who thinks the same?
02-18-08, 03:45 AM #2
Since I already know what Life in the military is like, It is useful and can be life saving. So yeah, why not. as long as it's not more than 2 years.
02-18-08, 03:47 AM #3
Challenger, i vote no. Why should any person fresh out of school be forced to go and risk there life, watch there mates killed or be forced to kill other people
No way is this a good thing
02-18-08, 03:50 AM #4
02-18-08, 03:58 AM #5
i would rather compusery training in a volenteer organisation like the CFS, st john, lifesavers ect rather than the army. Its to easy for the goverment to decide to call them up. Just look at whats happened to the reserves in the US
02-18-08, 03:58 AM #6
LA, the poll option is a bit confusing. Are the second and third option different?
Otherwise, how if you merged them.. Or, how if you change the options into:
- yes, it should be obligated
- no, it should be restricted
- yes, but under voluntarily basis
In that way I would prefer the 3rd option coz I dont want my (future) son
experiencing any war zone unless of his own preference.
Just an idea
02-18-08, 04:04 AM #7
02-18-08, 04:09 AM #8
02-18-08, 04:10 AM #9
LA what kind of hassle?
a) if they are vilonent they wouldnt be accpeted in any of the volenteer services OR the millatry anyway
b) if they are just hanging out with there friends where is the harm in that? I think there should be MORE service for youths, throwing them into the millatry is just explotation and probably breaches the decloration of civil and political rights, and possably the conventions on the rights of the child (depending on what age that stops)
What if like me you object to the political use the millarty is being put to?
Oh and before you call me a lasy bum i just returned from signing up to join the country fire service and im studying to join the ambulance service so public service is something that is close to my heart
02-18-08, 04:14 AM #10
challanger, what survival skills could be usesful in civilan life? I really have NO interest or use of the knowlage of how to clean and fire a machine gun
As for disiplin this is not nessarly a good thing, its to easy to transfer that to automaticly following a goverment blindly. Does the millatry teach how to protest? how to vote responcably?
Citzanship, comunity service, these are more important skills in my opinion
02-18-08, 04:15 AM #11
02-18-08, 04:16 AM #12
02-18-08, 04:17 AM #13
thats a failure of schools and parents. So insted of fixing that lets send them out to get shot or traumitised for life
02-18-08, 04:21 AM #14
02-18-08, 04:37 AM #15
and for all those people who are saying, "boo hoo thats not fair to send our kids out to get shot"
The years of National Service cover almost two decades - from World War Two to the birth of the Beatles. In all, between 1945 and 1963, 2.5 million young men were compelled to do their time in National Service - with 6,000 being called up every fortnight.
'Some went willingly, while others were reluctant but resigned.'
Some went willingly, while others were reluctant but resigned. A few were downright bloody-minded, seeing little difference between their call up and the press gangs of Britain's distant past.
At first public opinion was behind the idea of peacetime conscription, or national service. It was clear in the immediate post war political landscape that Britain had considerable obligations, and only a limited number of men still in service.
There was Germany to be occupied with 100,000 troops; and Austria too. In the Middle East there was Palestine to be policed, Aden to be protected, the Suez Canal Zone to be held down - as well as Cyprus, Singapore, Hong Kong and a chain of lesser military bases.
However, in the milk bars and Lyon's tea shops of those days, no amount of government propaganda could stop youngsters of both sexes grousing about the disruption to their lives caused by national service. It would have an effect on education plans, young boys starting apprenticeships, and on girlfriends faced with the prospect of their partners disappearing with only occasional leave. The only escape, so it seemed, was failing the medical.
02-18-08, 09:35 AM #16
beside saying a simple yes or no to the OP's questions, there are certain variables:
1. Length of obligatory service (6 months, 1 year, 2 years)
2. Were can the citizen be used (only home, abroad, in action)
There could be a case made for let's say a 1 year obligatory service, but they wouldn't be shipped oversees or not directly into wars. That way they still would learn a little discipline and take away the weight from the pro army, but they wouldn't get hurt that much. They could do home what the national guard is supposed to do or be abroad in stations far away from real war, like Germany or Japan or even South Korea...
02-18-08, 09:39 AM #17
02-18-08, 09:45 AM #18
I know I would have been a first class complainer, but I know it made men out of my brothers. The military has been very good to my family.
02-18-08, 09:47 AM #19
02-18-08, 09:48 AM #20
By superrubbish in forum Comparative ReligionLast Post: 09-20-09, 09:10 AMReplies: 39
By superstring01 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 10-25-07, 11:07 PMReplies: 0
By OrangeCandle in forum World EventsLast Post: 10-07-07, 11:36 AMReplies: 14
By Tiassa in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 09-22-07, 04:34 PMReplies: 22
By nirakar in forum World EventsLast Post: 10-16-05, 02:59 PMReplies: 23