What part of this don't you understand?

I did nine years as an officer. Military service helps some people. It doesn't have any affect at all on plenty of others, and often just leaves a bad taste for the military. Especially the short timers. I have no idea if people forced to do it would join the first group or not, but it seems unlikely overall.


It sure would be expensive, though.



FWI, the Swiss no longer have mandatory military service.
 
It doesn't have any affect at all on plenty of others,
Click to expand...
This is rather a sweeping statement...
Unless these people live in a vacuum...

I do not believe that a person can experience anything without it having some influence on him.

Generally speaking people are basically inclined to do good rather than evil.

Therefore, axiomatically, they will improve from their experience rather than digress...

As I said,
Even The lowest... scumbag who serves in the national defense system, can return home a better scumbag than he was...
Click to expand...
Looking at my earlier posted "list"... surely they could learn at least something they wouldn't have otherwise learned.

Even convicts in a bootcamp atmosphere are the better for the experience...

POINT
We did not know them from before they joined the service... and we cannot KNOW the degree to which they might have improved. Past experience tells us, the majority of us are improved...

Even if it was only an "attitude adjustment"... ;)
 
That isn't logical. Many people go into military service without anything in particular wrong with them. They leave bitter and rejected, having gained nothing in the way of experience or skills that attracted them in the first place. The military advancement system is actually built around a relatively low retention rate for certain MOS's. In other words, the Navy needs people to scrape paint, and doesn't really care if they like it or not.

Comraderie, teambuilding and leadership are things that many people are already well acquainted with by the time they've played sports, Scouting, student government, etc.


As far as your axioms, that's a nice thought. I don't know where you get that from, but it is certainly very positive thinking of you. It certainly isn't a fact, though.



The whole idea of instituting a draft because you believe, but have nothing more than belief, that it will be more positive than not is some really radical and expensive social engineering. Who's going to jail if your unfounded socialogic theory fails miserably?
 
I would have to say the liberal socialogic theory has shown us how to fill or prisons with people that lack social skills, self relance, responsibility, and positive attitudes.

We now have millions who are clueless and depend on tax payers to house, feed, and jail them.
 
I served for a very short time less than six months actually. I come from a military family. Grandfather-Army WWII Father-Army Vietnam Uncle-Marines-Vietnam,Cousin-Army Iraq, I knew I wanted to do it as soon as I was old enough. I made it in went to Ft.Knox, Cav scouts :cool: I made it through most of basic was literally almost done and i had an asthma attack. Never had it before in my life, but the docs said that's what it was and I got the big black boot back home. I loved it, would go back in a second if they'd take me. Hurt alot since I had to watch alot of my friends from basic and alot of my friends from my guard unit that i was gonna be deployed with go to Iraq without me. Anyone who has served could understand that. Now on to the draft I'm against it mostly, it has a few good aspects, but unless you're dealing with a situation like WWII I don't think it's a grand idea. Most of my drills hated the idea of a draft because they said it's bad enough to train most of the guys that sign on willingly, how about the guys that are forced to join. I think forced service has more negative points then pros. Just my dollar minus 98 cents ;)
 
Marlboroman
Thank you...
it's bad enough to train most of the guys that sign on willingly, how about the guys that are forced to join.
Click to expand...
If EVERYONE was required to serve at least 6 months of training...
It would introduce the "paint scrapers" to the "pencil pushers" and toss in the sons of bakers and candlestick makers. This "hodge pahge" would be an influence for good with everyone learning a little about the others...

Bottom line... you cannot wait until a world war starts to suddenly draft and train the citizens... It must be done with prudence and advanced preparations... :)

Handy
It seems to me, to be an elitist attitude to use class officers, cheerleaders, sports teams etc as examples of GENERAL learning sources...

The majority of people have trouble just graduating from HS...
Only a miniscule segment of society EVER has the opportunity to join such organizations...

I grew up in Oakland, Kalifornica... most of us didn't have a "snowballs chance" of ever being talented enough to be effective in extra-curricular stuff...

I and many of my friends and neighbors didn't have active dad's and it was all our mother's could manage just to keep us fed and clothed and under some semblance of control... What "values" my Mom taught me were pitched on the fly as she was on her way in or on her way out...

She later worked overtime to send me to a private ranch school where the students worked the ranch to help pay tuition...

Again, the majority of my old friends didn't have that chance and if they did get such an opportunity...They might not have recognized it as an opportunity...

When I was in the Army it was a common practice to offer borderline trouble makers a chance to join the Army instead of going to jail for minor offenses committed... about half of the students at the ranch school were "sent" there "voluntarily" by the Juvi Judges... The mandatory atmosphere worked very well and the Basic Training Camp had the same kind of atmosphere...

Out of every few hundred trainees there was perhaps one who was totally incorrigible. And even he was improved a little for his training experience.

Please stop condescending to me and deciding what I believe and passing your judgments on me...
Your judgement isn't all that...

Carbiner
We now have millions who are clueless and depend on tax payers to house, feed, and jail them.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Pointer, I regret that we missed each other; I am in the middle of moving and simultaneously was offered a promotion at work, so the increase in activity forced a pause in my part of the conversation, at least.

I'm sorry to say I don't quite follow the course of logic in your argument. You stated:

You misunderstand... It is the governments objective to train soldiers...
It is not my desire that the government have an objective to instill specific values in the citizenry... I am stating my belief that by serving in the military for training purposes, will have the side effect of instilling values which will improve the character of the citizenry...
Click to expand...

In turn, you follow with these statements:

Absolutely... but, alas they do not and because they were generally raised by incompetent parents, who were raised by incompetent parents...
Click to expand...

Hell no! What I want is for the character of the citizenry to become such that "really large welfare programs" become obsolete!
Click to expand...

While on the one hand you maintain that the goal of mandatory military service is to train soldiers, on the other hand you hold an objective of correcting parental mistakes and improving the character of the citizenry. Maybe I misread, but your secondary goals sound as important to you - and as much of a final objective to you - as the stated primary goal, that of training soldiers.

If you wish to argue that mandatory military training is needed to train soldiers - with that constituting the primary objective - then you should demonstrate that military manpower requirements are not being met to such a degree as to jeopardize the safety of the nation and that the deficit shows no signs of being relieved through traditional and current recruitment activities and processes in order to have a compelling argument. Basically, can you demonstrate a pressing, realistic need for that many more troops? If you cannot, then that begs the question of why incorporate so many people into the military, even if for brief periods of service, at all outside of furthering their own personal development?

This brings me to my second point, which is that the "social engineering" (to borrow Handy's phrase) aspect of your proposal is a cost-intensive, 'big government' solution that really holds what you attempt to describe as a side-effect, i.e., developing the 'character' of the citizenry, as its ultimate goal in the absense of an actual need for the soldiers. As I stated earlier, much of this training is or should be performed by parents; I also would add that in the absence of that, some of this character training is or should be provided by the public education system in this country. So, if these levels of 'trainers' already exist, but are having trouble accomplishing their goals, would it not be better to devote the country's resources to strengthening them than taking the rather draconian step of incorporating everybody into the military and hoping that some of its virtues rub off on them during the process? If my tax dollars are going to finance social engineering on a grand scale, I'm much more inclined to see them spent on a chronically underfunded public education system than on an already well-funded military system that does not and should not have social re-education as a primary or even secondary goal, however desirable such a re-education may be?
 
Last edited:
Common sense, and not senseless radical nationalism, dictates that America would be better off with a smaller, better trained, better equipped, and better funded military then a large, bumbling, poorly equipped, and unmotivated conscript force. Seems just like a lot of body bags in the making.

Studies have shown (quoted from the book The Power of Focus) that on average, motivated workers in the USA are 127% more productive than workers who are not. Translate this to battlefield performance, and, well....You do the math/logical reasoning.

I am a college student, and will soon be purusing an MBA: it's what I like and WANT to do with my life. Assuming I will have all of the proper connections, grades, drive, etc, I may be looking at a salary in the high eighties of nineties. Let's say, then, I get sent to Iraq as an enlisted grunt, and am killed.

Think of it this way: using my hypothetical self as an example, would I benefit the American society, economy, and MILITARY by:
1) Utilizing my education and experience in working a Financial job I enjoy; whilst contributing to the economic well-being of this country, both through my service and through increased taxes paid via my higher salary, OR
2) Being conscripted into the military....with no OCS or ROTC training, I am put into an infantry unit as a low-ranking enlistee, then sent into direct combat, fighting in a foreign land for a cause (Corrupt American Politicians) that I vehemently disagree with.

Just because you're a civilian, doesn't mean you're not serving your country or the military, thus all of you who cry "freedom isn't free, thus you better get shot up in Iraq or move to Canada" are full of it. Where do you think all of the money that buys armor, vehicles, food, weapons, and training for our troops comes from?

It comes from the hard working Investment Banker in Manhattan, who makes 90K a year but devotes 25% of that to taxes, and works 10 hour days. It comes from the college student, working a summer job, but being taxed. It comes from those who aren't as lucky and fortunate to have a college education, working blue-collar jobs, and working hard as proud, hard-working Americans.

There are many ways to prove you are a hard working, patriotic American who is actively giving back to the country and her people. If you're a lawyer, you can do pro bono cases. If you're a teacher, you can give free tutoring to at-risk children, who are frusterated with school. If you're a doctor, you can perform free surgery on a child whose parents cannot afford the surgery that will save his/her life. If you want to directly work for the government, work to make America a safer place by joining the CIA or FBI--- even the Secret Service.

I don't feel that it's appropriate or logical for people to tell me and others that I have to prove my American-ness by enlisting in the military to fight in Iraq for a President who won't even send his own daughters to the war. I would be the first to sign up if we were ever invaded--- but until that happens, let people help the country the way they can best: by letting them choose where to apply their talents and ambitions.
 
I'm pretty sad that I can't view the military tribute you all say is a great video. My computer is a POS, so it doesn't have the necessary codecs.

Man, I gotta say I'm on both sides of the aisle on this one.

On one hand, I can see where military service, forced or not, would definitely benefit most people. And that it helps boost a sense of patriotism, again in most people. It would help build character, citizenship, morality, and all the good things that most people derive from military service. I can site all the positive effects everyone has posted here about the issue.

But the key word is MOST.

On the other hand, military service sometimes doesn't accomplish any of these things. While in the Navy, the service helped me to mature, become much more responsible, especially as I was responsible for top secret material. And it helped me see beyond my own self absorbed, "poor me" world. But it also chewed some people up and spat them out. I remember one kid on my ship, he was a food service assistant. On his time off, he would just sit between the vending machines holding his head, and thinking of God knows what. Didn't take long for him to washout. The next time I saw him, he was living on a doorstep in downtown San Diego. It just doesn't work for some people.

And you think cindy sheehan is a problem now? If her son had been forced rather than volunteered, how do you think she would be acting then?

Take for instance, the thread on the Army officer who is refusing to deploy. He supposedly volunteered. And now look at him, flaunting his cowardice for all to see.
Doesn't mean I would back out of the enlistment contract that I have already signed but I would certainly support anyone who refused to take part in something they felt was wrong.
Click to expand...
How does this statement correlate with the Army officer? Is this statement any less true because the officer volunteered, than it would be if he had been mandatory serviced in? There's just too many grey areas for this issue to come to a clear and concise outcome.

Like I said in the other thread on this topic, I think it has the potential to do alot of good, but it won't get the opportunity, assuming it is ever truly needed.:cool:
 
Just because you're a civilian, doesn't mean you're not serving your country or the military, thus all of you who cry "freedom isn't free, thus you better get shot up in Iraq or move to Canada" are full of it. Where do you think all of the money that buys armor, vehicles, food, weapons, and training for our troops comes from?
Click to expand...

I won't say I speak for everyone when I give this definition, but I think at least a few will agree with me who have been in military service. When we (we as in military ex or active) say freedom isn't free it's because truly it's not. Someone has to fight for it. I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to join the army because it's not for everyone. For some i.e me it was something we always wanted to do for others it's a last resort for money,a job,shelter,etc. I don't say freedom isn't free then expect everyone to join the army navy marines or air force, but I do expect this... This is America and it's a country that was founded on the blood of men who fought for freedom and what they believed in. If you don't wanna join the military fine, as i said it's not for everyone, but anyone who denounces the troops does need to head north as far as I'm concerned, because we don't write policy, we don't start wars, we end them. One poster on here has a signature that goes something like "freedom holds a special meaning to those that have had to fight for it" and that's the truth. Even people who support the troops,most have no idea what it's like to go through BCT,AIT, or get shipped off to some foreign country and watch your friends die or get wounded yourself. Freedom is not free, but I don't expect everyone to pay for it the way some of us do. My view on it, you wanna chip in for freedom, shake a vet's hand.
 
I completely agree. I do think that civilians who spend their free time demoralizing the troops by protesting their service to the country should be chastised, but not necessarily deported, because the first amendment protects their right to be A-holes. (Yet they don't understand who had to get shot at to protect that right).

I hope that others, both military and ex-military alike, will understand that the people who work and struggle hard in their jobs back home, and who willingly give a large slice of their checks to the government, are those that drive our economy, and contribute to the country in that manner.

I, for one, am proud to work my two jobs this summer at 50 hours a week, knowing that I'm at least contributing money that will be used (hopefully wisely) by the military in Iraq to buy body armor to protect our troops, and to make sure they are well fed and comfortable off-duty when not risking their life and limb for the interests of our country.
 
Leif
you hold an objective of correcting parental mistakes and improving the character of the citizenry.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of "leap" I was referring to with another poster a little earlier...

I hold that the experience will improve the trainee's overall character and, therefore, indirectly influence the society for good.

I never said anything that can be construed or extrapolated that this would "make up for parental mistakes... I believe it will provide the trainee with values and principles that will make the trainee a better parent and member of society and thus improve that part of society over which he is influencial.
Absolutely...(Parents should learn good values and instill them in their children) but, alas they do not...
Click to expand...

...The result of permissive parenting training permissive parents attending permissive schools and living in a permissive society and occasionally being incarcerated in permissive jails and prisons etc...

We are making too big of a thing out of this...

The bottom line is that the people of the US don't have much in common anymore and they percieve themselves to be very very different and unique...

This is the me4me attitude I have been talking about...

In a class I took ages ago, a pretty smart professor taught that...

"Selfishness is the root foundation of all that is evil."
I add, that it is the downfall of ALL failed societies.

If one desires to partake of ANY society's benefits...
Then he must willingly partake of that society's detriments.

My favorite Christian-based religion teaches that "If a thing is of good report" the members should "seek after such things"

Thank you for making an effort to communicate and understand...
 
Last edited:
Pointer, thanks for the clarification. I think the distance in our views on the subject lies more in differences in our views of American history and the state of modern American society, so we'll probably have to 'agree to disagree' since I'm not sure those can be reconciled, at least within the course of this thread.

I know that we have structural differences in our perspectives on this topic when you posit the following statement as your view of modern American society and how it as changed throughout its history:

The bottom line is that the people of the US don't have much in common anymore and they percieve themselves to be very very different and unique...

This is the me4me attitude I have been talking about...
Click to expand...

I hold a very different view, which in brief maintains that selfish attitudes among and activities perpetrated by American citizens (and people generally) are neither particularly new nor more pervasive than they were in the past. Naturally, quantifying such a nebulous property is impossible, but I pretty much can guarantee that for every anecdotal example of a current manifestation of the "me4me attitude", its historical counterpart can be found in just about any period of the history of this nation.

As long as we have communication, though ... that's the scary part, when the communication between those of disparate worldviews disappears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top