Do you think military service should be mandatory?

[Nesher 629]

in this reply

he said that military service should be mandatory

someone replied that it the service is voluntary in a free country

 

so... state your opinion!

 

as you all probably know in Israel it's mandatory to serve your country

most of us do it (some get discharge for various reasons)

i think in a way it's a good thing, Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies so we don't have a choice

and in a way freedom has it's price

BUT making it mandatory means we may lower the standards for some people

and of course less money to pay each soldier (every cent counts when you earn less than 100-200$ a month...until you reach your permanent service if you signed for more)

 

 

what do you think??

 

Cheers

[Growler67 0]

In my opinion Freedom isn't "free". I would support a minimum Military Service Obligation being mandatory and even go as far as making it occur between the ages of 18-26. Completion would grant one the right to vote just as a Dishonorable Discharge should withhold that right. Entitlement seems to be considered a "right" in the US as of late and I don't see a lot of appreciation of things from younger generations. Many things including their actual rights are taken for granted and imposing something like a mandatory minimum term of service would instill (hopefully) a sense of appreciation for things including but not limited to: teamwork, achievement, citizenship, freedom and patriotism.

 

Too many people (mostly younger but not exclusively) seem to expect everything to be given to them instead of earned. Especially with this recent era of "Political Correctness" where even at lower age groups "everybody wins" and personal (individual) achievements are dissipated if not expressly frowned upon. You want freedom? What are you prepared to pay for it? A few years of your time in service to your country and an opportunity to not only learn a career skill but a chance to learn and grow as not only an individual but a respectful citizen isn't too much to ask in my opinion. I served 8 years myself on Active Duty and got out after the Gulf War (1991 - 213 days in theater). I have been working for the Department of the Army as a Contractor and now as a Department of Defense Civilian Employee, so in a sense I have remained and am still serving. I expect nothing to be given to me but a little respect as a human being. Anything more than that should be earned one way or another.

 

Service to ones community; be it town, city, state or country should be looked upon as "public service' as our Founding Fathers had envisioned it. Everybody serves at least some time in some capacity for the greater good. Career Politicians wouldn't exist as they only seek personal agendas. If you do not at least serve your community (at whatever level) then you are nothing more than a contemptable leech.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Growler67

[+Dave 2,318]

Right on Growler!

[MjRichardIraBong 0]

No it should not be mandatory.

 

Would you want to be in a foxhole with a volunteer or a draftee?

 

Our military leadership in the USA are the ones who wanted the all volunteer force.

[NS13Jarhead 6]

Personal opinion: Keep it voluntary. I served with many volunteers who realized they didn't want to be there. I could only imagine the leadership challenge of directing a bunch of draftees who were forced into service and are now only concerned with ticking off days on their short timer's calendar.

[ezlead 42]

Volunteer or Draftee?

It doesn't really matter when the shooting starts.

Many hundreds of thousands of draftees throughout the history of this country did their duty when they were called on to serve their country.

You have to LEARN to COVER each other or you all end up dead.

I don't know about mandatory service,but I do believe in reinstating the draft.

Multiple tours of combat is a crock unless you volunteer.

We lose too many good people on the 2nd or 3rd tour.

[eraser_tr 29]

Requiring some form of service to your country is fairly reasonable, but I don't think military service should be mandatory, aside from the possible necessity of a wartime draft.

 

In a country as wide and diverse as America, making such a requirment to be able to vote would create a whole host of issues. What would happen to people who physically could not serve even if they wanted to? Sure some exemption could be granted, but that would exacerbate discrimination already there against someone with a disability, having been given something others had to go through military service to earn, or being outright denied that ability to vote by circumstances beyond their control.

 

What about people who are on the cusp of being able to serve, where they can function normally most of the time in society, but couldn't in a military environment, either the physical stresses during bootcamp or combat, or the structure of life in the military? I certainly fit into this category, I've thought about joining to military when I wasn't sure what kind of career path to take, and I was dead set on being a tomcat pilot when I was around 10, but these considerations kept that from being a good option.

[Silverbolt 104]

No it should not be mandatory,at least here in my country's reality...many people here are called to serve here don't matter if its rich or poor, but the Army don't want know if you want study or keep up with your job(if you get one before get 18), so you have to re-manage your life and most part of time needs to give up the university , orother jobs.

in other hand , there is a thousand of peoples that see in Army an Oportunity to grow in its life, but many times those people aren't called for service, so the people who is serving, do a crappy job,just because army is sticking this person in nothing .

 

well, i hope i was clear enought hehe

[OvS 8]

I say mandatory... as it was my response that kicked this off. I just feel, as it has been said already, that today's youth bears NO responsibility or care for anything. We've opened the doors to all kinds in the USA and now we've flooded the streets and alleyways with thousands of bodies that could care less about what keeps them free, or for that matter, speaking the same language, keeping their neighbor safe... etc.. etc.

 

I say a two year stint might just help those along that don't realize a dream, and maybe give them the training to do something of themselves. Think of all the men that returned from the service that learned construction, mechanics, engineering.. etc... don't just think of the men/women as trained killers.

 

I'd say it's a better shot at something rather than seeing these kids end up in jails.

 

Yes, freedom isn't free, but at this point, we can't keep sending the same older troops to keep us clean. It's time to start replacing them with new blood.

 

OvS

[eraser_tr 29]

I think that's just a wrong assumption to make about younger people. It's been a stereotypical image of younger generations for decades of hormonal teenage angst. For those that don't see it firsthand, it's easy to believe we aren't responsible or care about anything other than iPods, Xbox and American Idol, but "youth" is very engaged, aware, very respible and are very passionate about meaningful things.

[herman01 0]

I think either way it's a tuff call. Volunteer force sounds nice and you can pull out some good motivated recruits but it usually just means poor and lower middle-class will serve. You can also get some duds who couldn't make it in the civilian world and about 80% usually remain duds. With a draft I'm sure you get some quality and some crap. Also many of the wealthy individuals of society will still find away out becasue of the resources allotted to them. I don't think there should be draft but it wouldn't hurt to change the demographics of the military to mix like that of World War 2. It's an ideal that seems to be unachievable though. We could hire Hessians to do the job.

Edited August 17, 2009 by herman01

[serverandenforcer 33]

This is what I think. If you want to vote, you need to serve. If you want more than just the basic rights, you need to serve, if you want to be excluded from certain or all taxes, you need to serve. In order to curb this "stereo-type" of youths taking their freedoms, rights, and liberities for granted, we need to take some of them back and give these freedoms and rights to them only if they want to serve for them. I don't think the form of service has to be excluded to only military. It could also be any form of civil service, such as law-enforcement, fire fighting, paramedics, judicial, etc... The slogan, "Freedom isn't Free" doesn't really hit home for someone who hasn't paid for it one way or another. This doesn't mean those people don't care. I'm sure there are a lot of non-serving Americans who do care quite a bit for those who serve. However that slogan would have a deeper meaning and sense of respect if they fully understood the kind of price paid for their freedoms, and that can only be accomplished by serving for the country, one way or another. I will never forget being in medical over in Kirkuk Regional Airbase on my Sept 06 to Mar 07 tour in Iraq for a simple cut in my hand from a piece of glass when a blackhawk brought in the causalties from a roadside bomb. Since that day, I fully understand why freedom isn't free and the importance of why younger people need to really understand this. How else are we going to continue in builidng a better government, a better nation, if they are not exposed to what the price is? As a nation, we have not done the best job that we could have done in making this country better than what it is now. This nation has so much potential and we're not putting much effort into it. We've gotten so used to the status quo that anything that exceeds that sounds rediculous.

Edited August 17, 2009 by serverandenforcer

[FastCargo 412]

SaE hit it right on the head a la Starship Troopers style.

 

Don't make it mandatory, unless you want the right to vote.

 

Think about it...in a free society, the right to vote is one of the strongest rights you have...you can literally change the direction of the country by voting. So why should such power be given away just because you live here. How about with that power comes learning some responsibility.

 

And it doesn't have to be military service. But it must be some service where A) It isn't easy and B) You are at the whim of the government for a few years. Also, the right to vote should not occur until after successful completion of your term of service. In other words, you can't vote unless you're a civilian.

 

FC

[+Julhelm 266]

Mandatory service is just a waste of money as you have to train people from nothing, and then by the time they're actually somewhat proficient, then their stint is up and they go back to being civilians and thus are completely out of the ever-progressing tech loop and become useless by the time you have to reactivate them. Conscription is fine for when you only need lots of cannon fodder who don't need to be taught much more than how to handle a rifle and march in formation, but today's military is far too technologically advanced for that approach to be viable. Hence why most nations who used to have conscription are moving more and more towards some kind of professional 'lifer' force.

[JediMaster 451]

What good is voting when no one running is ever worth voting for? Anything above the local level is usually nothing but corruption or slime whether on the state or federal level.

 

The "American voter" does nothing but re-elect these frauds for term after term despite the utter lack of progress they bring and even in the face of scandals. Of course, since "con" is the opposite of "pro", it's obvious Congress is the opposite of progress. We could quite easily have computers randomly elect people from the ballots and things would probably go BETTER.

 

So to me, the voting process in this country only proves one thing--the average American is an idiot. Therefore, do we want to force idiots into combat alongside those who WANT to be there?

[+Dave 2,318]

but today's military is far too technologically advanced for that approach to be viable. Hence why most nations who used to have conscription are moving more and more towards some kind of professional 'lifer' force.

 

You know that is something I hadn't thought of and brings up a very good point. Its getting to the point anymore when a person spends 2 years in just training status. So I think you have a good point Julhelm.

[+Dave 2,318]

What good is voting when no one running is ever worth voting for? Anything above the local level is usually nothing but corruption or slime whether on the state or federal level.

 

The "American voter" does nothing but re-elect these frauds for term after term despite the utter lack of progress they bring and even in the face of scandals. Of course, since "con" is the opposite of "pro", it's obvious Congress is the opposite of progress. We could quite easily have computers randomly elect people from the ballots and things would probably go BETTER.

 

So to me, the voting process in this country only proves one thing--the average American is an idiot. Therefore, do we want to force idiots into combat alongside those who WANT to be there?

 

 

Or just getting people out to vote. Some do not even bother.

[eraser_tr 29]

Of course, since "con" is the opposite of "pro", it's obvious Congress is the opposite of progress.

 

B) You are at the whim of the government for a few years. Also, the right to vote should not occur until after successful completion of your term of service. In other words, you can't vote unless you're a civilian.

 

Now this is a serious problem. We can't be considered a free society if people are forced to be at the "whim of the government" and is one of the ultimate reasons I decided the military is not right for me. Never will I let anybody, anywhere ever have that kind of power over my life, I would rather die.

 

And not being able to vote until afterwards brings up the problem that occured back in Vietnam where the voting age was 21, but you could be drafted at 18. Where you can be made to go to war for your country, but are given no say as to whether the country goes to war.

 

And withholding the right to vote unless people serve is flat out wrong too, see my first post as to disabilities. To do so would be to prohibit people from having access to even gain that right, which would be no better than discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity or gender.

[Growler67 0]

We can't be considered a free society if people are forced to be at the "whim of the government" and is one of the ultimate reasons I decided the military is not right for me. Never will I let anybody, anywhere ever have that kind of power over my life, I would rather die.

 

Where should we send flowers? The POTUS has indentured the next 2 generations of unborn Americans and is nearly doing so for a 3rd (his master plan for health care), we've all bailed out banks and such that should've been left to fail and fold, we are all paying for mortages where people put themselves VOLUNTARILY into a bad loan situation and got caught by it, not to mention the SoS gets her panties in a bunch when upstaged by her hubby for going to North Korea.

 

Daisies okay?

[eraser_tr 29]

National debt doesn't put one's entire life at the "whim of the government". And considering our debt has been much higher in relation to our GDP and hasn't caused the end of the country before signals it's not so much to freak out over as it's being made to be.

[FastCargo 412]

And withholding the right to vote unless people serve is flat out wrong too, see my first post as to disabilities. To do so would be to prohibit people from having access to even gain that right, which would be no better than discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity or gender.

 

Bullcrap.

 

We already exclude folks from voting (felons, under 18, non-citizens, etc).

 

You are already under the whim of the government. It's called the law. You break the law and get caught, you suffer the consequences.

 

You also missed the point of the service does not have to be military. It could be anything that your particular abilities allow you to do...but what matters is that you serve the country, and not yourself for a term of service. Hell, Americorps isn't a bad option.

 

Again, why should a person be allowed to have the power to directly shape society while contributing nothing to it except noise?

 

FC

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

My opinion... Totally. Without weapons and survival training and training to operate under pressure, we'll all be completely f**ked once the dead start rising...

[serverandenforcer 33]

Withholding the right to vote unless people serve is flat out wrong, see my first post as to disabilities. To do so would be to prohibit people from having access to even gain that right, which would be no better than discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity or gender.

 

That's why I suggested that service should not only be limited to only the military. There are so many different forms of service that even someone with a disability can provide. Hell, do you know how much pride it would bring to that person too?... knowing despite the fact that they have a disability, they were able to provide some form of a service in participation to help make our nation a more perfect union? And let's say if the disability is to severe, in which a person can't even step out of their home without the aid of someone else, I'm all for a waiver that would grant them the rights and privleges that would have been given to someone who would have served. Its not their fault that they have a disability... unless they got it from trying to play chicken with a bus.

 

When I was 18, I thought of enlisting, but then said to myself that there are a lot of people in this country who don't deserve my blood to be shed for their freedoms. So I didn't enlist untill 2005 when I realized I was becoming part of a system in which I'm enjoying what I got far too much that were provided by the sacrifices of many good folks overseas. I began to feel like a coward and made the decision to enlist and serve. Never regretted that decision. Infact my only regrett is that I didn't enlist sooner.

 

I understand what you're saying eraser, but I don't agree with it. I too wasn't easily fond of the idea of being under the "whim" of the government, but in reality, its not really being under that much of a whim. You don't lose much, and in contrast, you gain a lot more. But if you're comfortable to have others pay the ultimate price for what you got, then continue on with what you've been doing. We will never change in being a volluntary military force, and I have to say that I'm quite impressed with how well we have been able to maintain the numbers because of that. That truly says how great our nation is.

[eraser_tr 29]

Following the law is not being at the whim of the government, nor is being part of Americorps. But being at the whim of the government for a few years is what you said. To do something for others and the country instead of putting yourself first doesn't get any opposition from me, just the matter of being under someone's direct control.

 

Anyway, the only people who are excluded from voting who get the right to begin with are felons, where they had the right previously and lost it because of their actions. Non-citizens is a non issue, as are people under 18, as becoming either grants you the right to vote.

 

but in reality, its not really being under that much of a whim

 

Well that was the language brought up, which is my opposition, not the actual service.

Edited August 17, 2009 by eraser_tr

[Vigilant 1]

I like the Starship troopers idea of vote for service. Also if i remember the book correctly the service was not necessarily military in nature and and federation had to find a place for everyone that volunteered (so no volunteer is discriminated).

 

Back to the topic. A conscripted army is IMHO not well suited for current times. First problem is motivation. Conscript, in general, doesn't want to serve unless there is strong motivation (existence of the country is in danger, etc.), or his motivation is made irelevant by the system. Something like: "Comrades there are Germans on that hill, you will run up that hill and kill them. If you run the wrong direction then here are the comrades from NKVD with this machinegun. For Stalin! CHARGEE!!!" Today (from the perspective of EU, US and to some degree Russia) wars are interventions in countries that average citizen can barely find on a map. And are fought for reasons hard for such citizen to comprehend. Particularly when the war drags for several years(as any such war will). So it is hard to make a conscript (and his relatives) entusastic about fighting in such war. And if peace breaks out there is even less reason to serve from the prespective of the conscript.

Maintaining a conscripted army in peacetime has the other problems. Apart from the morale problems(they get bored and you get more or less institualised bulling and incompetence) you can't train a short time (1-2 years) conscript to the same level as a longer time volunteer(in wartime they serve "for the duration of hostilities"). In the end you are pouring large amounts of money into training people that wold not stay long enought to be worth the expense.

So in my opinion mantadatory military service is not well suited for today militaries of Europe or US. In different cirkumstances (ie. Israel) it is a necessary part of national survival.