War is the result of one group of people trying to impose their will on another. A soldier is an agent of that coercive impulse. I personally can not imagine pointing a gun at someone and telling them who and what they should be. Situations in where there are oppressors should not ideally be solved by counter-opression, but rather intelligence, logic, a deep consideration for ethics, and communication.
A draft is an example of second order coercion. Its a nation or government, coercing its citizens, into being agents of coercion. Your ego has to be enormous to evoke an "ought" in favor of a draft.
You are a citizen of a society by virtue that you live there and pay your dues to the internal social infrastructure. You have no obligation to agree with the political stance, or values of your country, in fact here, you are legislated that freedom explicitly. Therefore, a draft would result in soldiers fighting a war they don't believe in. Soldiers fighting someone elses war, because there is a prison cell waiting at home for them unless they accept the incoming fire and prison cells of the enemies. It is one of the highest orders of tragedy immaginable by advanced societies today.
<!--quoteo(post=1587210:date=Dec 11 2006, 06:16 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1587210[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> War is the result of one group of people trying to impose their will on another. A soldier is an agent of that coercive impulse. I personally can not imagine pointing a gun at someone and telling them who and what they should be. Situations in where there are oppressors should not ideally be solved by counter-opression, but rather intelligence, logic, a deep consideration for ethics, and communication.
A draft is an example of second order coercion. Its a nation or government, coercing its citizens, into being agents of coercion. Your ego has to be enormous to evoke an "ought" in favor of a draft.
You are a citizen of a society by virtue that you live there and pay your dues to the internal social infrastructure. You have no obligation to agree with the political stance, or values of your country, in fact here, you are legislated that freedom explicitly. Therefore, a draft would result in soldiers fighting a war they don't believe in. Soldiers fighting someone elses war, because there is a prison cell waiting at home for them unless they accept the incoming fire and prison cells of the enemies. It is one of the highest orders of tragedy immaginable by advanced societies today. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although the two are quite related, this thread is attempting to debate the advantages / disadvantages of all high school grads pulling a hitch in the armed forces - let's try not to turn this into a debate on war. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
I thought I would put in my view of the matter of mandatory military service contra professional armies in the context of Sweden, to provide a different perspective.
I am a defender of mandatory military service in Sweden. Hey, I view the military with a crapload of scepsism and I personally would very probably not have volunteered for service if it was voluntary when I was of that age. However, precisely these things are what makes me want every single kid out there to serve.
Putting real people reasonable individuals of all classes and backgrounds in the military can only have a good effect. Anything but giving up the power of our national army to people who actually want to have the power. If there was one thing I learned about Sweden and our army is that there are people who definately should not bear arms or have command of troops, and the fewer of these in relation to more composed individuals there are in the military the better.'
Another very important point is the on-going war in Iraq and presumed soon-to-come invasion of Iran and the policy of Sweden in these questions and similar ones. It is simply much harder to gain acceptance to, and put in effect, military support for crap like that if it's 18-19 year old draftees who are sent away after being prodded into voluneering.
The word of one of the later verses of the Internationale holds true as long as the common man is the one doing the fighting. Should a nation be in the hands of a professional army, that army would not be controlled by the people anymore, but those who want to use our pride and hard work for political and economical gain. Wars would be fought not to defend us but for any purpose deemed necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin- The Internationale+ fifth verse--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( The Internationale @ fifth verse)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The kings deceive us with their fumes, Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants! Let us encourage strikes in the armies, To wave their guns and disband their ranks! If they insist, those cannibals, To make heroes of us, They will soon know our bullets, Are for our own generals. |: It is the final struggle Let us gather, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be mankind! :|<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited December 2006
Mandatory anything is asking for trouble. A choice would be nice, since the military isn't for everyone.
Whilst you say you have learnt some valuable skills in the military (and I agree you do learn valuable skills), why not just improve your education system so that some of these skills are taught earlier in life?
Back when I had to do my time, Germany had a nine month draft - or you could do ten months of civil service (the durations have changed since then). I chose the latter and never regretted it. Worked at a hospital for ten months and saw far more blood and yucky fleshbits than I'd ever expected to see. It also taught me to take responsibility for my work. By contrast, the military would have taught me how to stand straight, how to say "yes sir," how to shoot a G3 rifle - and how to sit on my ###### for months on end. Or at least that's what my friends ended up doing.
The reason for this is that the compulsory military service is simply too short to put the conscripts through anything but basic training. Upping the service period is not a good idea. Let's face it - in peace time, a soldier is a waste of money. His job is to kill and get killed. If there's no war, there is no demand for his abilities. And in modern conflicts, conscripts are useless anyway.
But compulsory civil service for a year or so (for BOTH genders - the current system is blatantly sexist) gets my vote.
<!--quoteo(post=1587242:date=Dec 11 2006, 07:13 PM:name=Private_Coleman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Private_Coleman @ Dec 11 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]1587242[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Mandatory anything is asking for trouble. A choice would be nice, since the military isn't for everyone.
Whilst you say you have learnt some valuable skills in the military (and I agree you do learn valuable skills), why not just improve your education system so that some of these skills are taught earlier in life? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Improving the education system would be fine for the 3 R's, but the military would teach discipline and respect for authority.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1587245:date=Dec 11 2006, 07:18 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 11 2006, 07:18 PM) [snapback]1587245[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Improving the education system would be fine for the 3 R's, but the military would teach discipline and respect for authority.
Hey, let's educate those who join! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No no, I mean teach the disipline, respect for authority in the school too.
Depot, you seem to be concerned with the "virtues" associated with armed service. I would argue that those virtues are not really virtues. The military values the subordination of the individual to the demands of an "other." In fact, it depends on it. This other is often embodied in this notion of what the soldier "ought" to do. A soldiers "discipline", "respect for authority" whatever you want to call it, are nothing but the call for the subordination of the individual intellect to the machine of war. Real respect is earned not taught.
It is that brazen nature of the ego, to control the world and make it into it's own image, that causes all artificial suffering. War is an example, but a mandatory draft is a secondary sort of war on the drafted. Forcing a person to be a tool of force is worse than the original display of inhumanity, because its the same impulse, turned on the citizens of the country that the war hawk claims to love so much.
Tjosan, you had a very good point that if the military is filled with average people then the maniacal nature of those who live for that power might be balanced somewhat. This presupposes that the power of militaries, does, should, or must exist; a view I'd point out is bleak, and depressing.
The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for.
<!--quoteo(post=1587270:date=Dec 11 2006, 07:57 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1587270[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Depot, you seem to be concerned with the "virtues" associated with armed service. I would argue that those virtues are not really virtues. The military values the subordination of the individual to the demands of an "other." In fact, it depends on it. This other is often embodied in this notion of what the soldier "ought" to do. A soldiers "discipline", "respect for authority" whatever you want to call it, are nothing but the call for the subordination of the individual intellect to the machine of war.
It is that brazen nature of the ego, to control the world and make it into it's own image, that causes all artificial suffering. War is an example, but a mandatory draft is a secondary sort of war on the drafted. Forcing a person to be a tool of force is worse than the original display of inhumanity, because its the same impulse, turned on the citizens of the country that the war hawk claims to love so much. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although this is true, it's certainly not all the military will teach you. Many of the good habits I have today can be credited to my military training. Not to mention the excellent electronics training I received or the further education I received because of the GI Bill.
The only time where I could see some sort of draft to be okay is if the country of topic is in need of a military body sufficient enough to protect itself (I THINK this is why Greece has the 12 month mandatory, but I could be mistaken). Forcing people to join the military when not needed is only going to enlarge the military (duh). And what use is a large military? Fighting. Not protecting. Fighting. Creating a larger than needed military just to teach "disciplines" would only create a large military, then someone would want to make use of that large military.
Plus, if you force something on someone, they are not going to want to do it (like 'Nam Draft Dodgers).
So you want to teach the young good habits, right?
Then do it with good parenting. Don't dump it on someone else to do. Doing so just encourages the laziness of society. Don't get someone else to do it. Do it yourself.
<!--quoteo(post=1587278:date=Dec 11 2006, 09:10 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 11 2006, 09:10 PM) [snapback]1587278[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're not going to learn a work ethic at night school though.
Sad news is many of today's youth lack that, and it's their parents fault. Likewise for a general lack of discipline or respect for authority. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, the problem is the teleology. Are you disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you? Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?
I think that working all day and going to night school takes great work ethic.
It's hardly just good habits that would result. As an example take a spoiled little rich kid that's had everything handed to him on a silver platter (you KNOW who you are). A 2 or 3 year hitch in the armed forces will help him/her build character and learn to be part of a team. Higher education simply can't teach you what real life does as far as becoming a significant contributor to society.
As already mentioned far to many parents do a lousy job of teaching their children how important it is to have a good work ethic, be punctual and disciplined, or to respect authority - to name just a few things. I work with the results of this daily and have to train many of them.
<!--quoteo(post=1587283:date=Dec 11 2006, 08:29 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1587283[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> well, the problem is the teleology. Are disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you. Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?
I think that working all day and going to night school takes great work ethic. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and yes, and yes, and yes.
And I agree the working AND going to night school would normally be indicative of a healthy work ethic. But one won't learn to have a healthy work ethic AT night school.
<!--quoteo(post=1587270:date=Dec 11 2006, 06:57 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 06:57 PM) [snapback]1587270[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, whoa, hold on there! What about the Korean war?
You can't look at South Korea compared to North Korea today and tell me the Korean war wasn't worth fighting, or wasn't a legitimate war. You either have a very narrow view of "legitimate", or a very limited view of history that includes "Vietnam" and "Iraq 2003". And maybe "Bosnia".
<!--quoteo(post=1587283:date=Dec 11 2006, 09:29 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]1587283[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Are you disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you?
Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that in some cases, the problem isn't that there is no instruction or modeling for these virtues, but that they take a convoluted form (the ultimate of which is embodied in the military.)
Kids are taught to respect people in authority, for no other reason then simply that person IS a person of authority. This is usually because of their age, or some position they hold. "Kids" realize that "grownups" are just older kids, and that if the edict of the authority is faulty in some way, it does not pay to accept it on principle.
Ideally they would respect those in authority without being told they must, because the authority commands respect, which anyone with a rational understanding will see, including minors. The result is a person's lack of respect for all of authority, not just illigitimate authority. Forcing this issue in the same direction ( a draft) would increase the problem.
The same thing goes for work ethic. Kids aren't in school because they want to become better smarter people, they are in school because they are forced to through high school, and then told they have no chance at a satisfying future without it. This same sort of alienation from the true virtue of work ethic as it would relate to school is what you see, and complain that kids don't have work ethic. Of course not, it was never genuine, and forcing it harder, (like a draft), would increase the problem.
I have to take issue with "Forcing this issue in the same direction ( a draft) would increase the problem." because I've seen where that's simply not true, up close and personal.
<!--quoteo(post=1587294:date=Dec 11 2006, 09:46 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 11 2006, 09:46 PM) [snapback]1587294[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hey, whoa, hold on there! What about the Korean war?
You can't look at South Korea compared to North Korea today and tell me the Korean war wasn't worth fighting, or wasn't a legitimate war. You either have a very narrow view of "legitimate", or a very limited view of history that includes "Vietnam" and "Iraq 2003". And maybe "Bosnia". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well for starters, the Korean War wasn't an official war, but a "police action" It was the first time that this semantic, legal loophole was used to marginalize congress in decisions concerning this country's military, an important check afforded that branch of government by the United States Constitution. Congress has not declared war since ww2.
Japan took over korea, which was one country, during world war 2. When the US and Russia were fighting japan, Russia attacked the Korean peninsula from the north, and the States attacked it from the south. They split the country along the 38th latitude, and in the aftermath of ww2 messed everything up. Instead of returning political control to the residents of the peninsula, to do with as THEY chose, Russia and the US set up respective puppet governments according to both countries ideology. In a nationalistic effort to unify the country, the north korean president lobbied stalin hard for permission to invade south korea in an effort to reunite the country. Stalin agreed, and Truman was pressured by republicans in congress, namely McCarthy, to staunch the expansion of communism.
So like I've been saying in my post, the korean war was just another example of people demanding that others live by the "correct" ideologies, and effectivly waging propoganda wars against the public in order to gather enough political support for the apathetic masses to allow it to happen.
<!--quoteo(post=1587300:date=Dec 11 2006, 10:00 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 11 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1587300[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have to take issue with "Forcing this issue in the same direction ( a draft) would increase the problem." because I've seen where that's simply not true, up close and personal. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you were drafted into the viet nam war, and you feel that it was a positive experience for yourself and/or others, then you would know more about that then I would. However, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
<!--quoteo(post=1587270:date=Dec 11 2006, 07:57 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1587270[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is one of my main reasons for supporting a draft army in Sweden. Politicians can send armies of volunteer professional soldiers anywhere for any reason with vague explanations, and no one can really stop them especially when the people fighting want or at least appear to want to fight. Trying to send "our boys" to war is much harder than sending "our soldiers".
It is my firm belief that this is exactly what made the US change their policy and abolish their system of drafting the general populace after Vietnam. It wasn't mainly because of the efficiency or cost of the army, it was because the existing system made it politically impossible to wage any similar war within the forseable future. Basically it was a military strategical decision to lessen the effects of the "war at home" part of modern nationalistic warfare. Something that had gradually turned into a medial war effort against the general populace at home rather than a national front to support the war effort abroad materially.
I want to delay this process as long as possible in my country, and I think you should look long and hard for how your military is used and why it is possible for the authorities to use it in that manner.
On the point Depot is pushing: the experiences, historically, of trying to promote discipline and work ethics through military fostering can be summed up in just a very few words. "Look at the last day of the defense of Berlin."
But hey we all love the Jugend, don't we?
Heil!
[Edit] Upon rereading my post I notice I misspelled Depot's nickname as "Despot". This was in no way intentional, although it may seems so. All I can blame is that it's almost 3.30 am as I write this and I'm starting to lack in concentration. My apologies.
I served during the period of the Viet Nam war and was involved firsthand with scores of draftees. Draftees or volunteers both had the same training (not including MOS) and I never noticed a difference as to who respected authority or who didn't.
Again, I understand that what I originally proposed is related to various wars, but I really don't want this thread turning into a war discussion. There have been some good points and counter-points, so let's stay on topic please.
<!--quoteo(post=1587304:date=Dec 11 2006, 08:13 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 08:13 PM) [snapback]1587304[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In a nationalistic effort to unify the country, the north korean president lobbied stalin hard for permission to invade south korea in an effort to reunite the country. Stalin agreed, and Truman was pressured by republicans in congress, namely McCarthy, to staunch the expansion of communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you say that was a good decision or a bad decision by Truman? In light of the comparative living standards of North and South Korea today, I have absolutely no qualms in saying that was a completely 100% good decision to defend South Korea.
But perhaps you'd have preferred to skip the propaganda war, and not impose our political will on South Korea? After all, who's to say they would like capitalism better than serving Kim Jong Il anyway? I'm surprised they havent already taken a vote for National Unification, and allowed the DPRK to annex them. I don't know why they bother putting millions of landmines on their northern border...
<!--quoteo(post=1587317:date=Dec 11 2006, 09:53 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 11 2006, 09:53 PM) [snapback]1587317[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Would you say that was a good decision or a bad decision by Truman? In light of the comparative living standards of North and South Korea today, I have absolutely no qualms in saying that was a completely 100% good decision to defend South Korea.
But perhaps you'd have preferred to skip the propaganda war, and not impose our political will on South Korea? After all, who's to say they would like capitalism better than serving Kim Jong Il anyway? I'm surprised they havent already taken a vote for National Unification, and allowed the DPRK to annex them. I don't know why they bother putting millions of landmines on their northern border... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not a thread to debate the pros and cons of going to war or to delve into any particular war. Please re-read the first post, the post right above your last one, and get back on topic. Please.
Well that's the sort of imperialistic logic that started the mess in the first place. You're arguing that the ends justify the means. I think that korea should have been given back to the koreans by both the US and Russia.
If the way you live is a superior way to live, it will speak for itself. It doesn't need guns to spread. I doubt you would argue that the USSR collapsed because we held on to south korea. Or that the US has enjoyed supremacy, because we held onto korea. I'd argue that Korea, when it comes down to it, had little to do with the fates of either super power. A lot of people died though.
Depot, I'm still having trouble with your conceptions of "respect for authority" and "discipline, " and don't feel like you've responded to my questions about them.
tjosan, very insightful thoughts on the abolition of the draft!
<!--quoteo(post=1587320:date=Dec 11 2006, 10:06 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]1587320[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Depot, I'm still having trouble with your conceptions of "respect for authority" and "discipline, " and don't feel like you've responded to my questions about them. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I answered yes to all four of your questions. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#33CC00--><span style="color:#33CC00"><!--/coloro-->Are you disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#33CC00--><span style="color:#33CC00"><!--/coloro-->Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying yes to all four questions doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that the green sentences are valid, but not the red ones. The mere fact that someone is an authoritative position, is no reason to respect them outright. Likewise working in spite of your own desires for a goal belonging to someone else, has no intrinsic merit.
I think that we need to be examining why we do what we do, and why others do what they do, and why and how people coerce each other to different actions.
Work ethic and respect for authority can be taught through civil service too. With the added bonus of actually doing work that society benefits from. Win/Win.
And I'm currently studying with monetary support from the danish state. Just like the U.S. "GI bill," this money comes from the state, which ultimately means the tax payers of today. I, in turn, will through my taxes pay for the education of future generations, and so on. While this system is associated with the military in the U.S., it doesn't have to be.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Work ethic would be much better taught through challenging higher education, public service, or simply spending Saturday mornings at Habitat for Humanity.
I don't think blanket respect for authority is a desirable thing to teach. We should be teaching a baseline of respect for everyone regardless of station, and additional respect for those that deserve it.
The function of military training is primarily to produce people that are skilled in organized violence. I don't think we really need more of that. Anything else is at best a positive side effect.
I'm sympathetic to wanting a more structured upbringing for our youth, but I don't think the military is the right way to do it. As a society I think we need to start putting more effort into maintaining social communities instead of into our personal entertainment. What we really need is more social exposure with mixed ages of people, not boot camp.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
I'm definitely coming into this thread late... but I feel that I have some special input to give, considering I enlisted at age 17, while I was in high school. As soon as I graduated, I was shipped off... and ... Well here I am, United States Marine, a little over a year later.
I don't have the time or the energy to completely spell out my opinion, but the short of it is this:
I'm sure most of us who are in our now young adult lives, working a steady job or trying, value our own discipline, motivation for success, work ethic, moral standards, etc. Or what little of these things we do have. Military service has, thus far, taught me innumerable and invaluable lessons... but the price to pay for such knowledge and experience is too much for anyone who does not want it that way. The benefits to ones character and maturity are great, but it is definitely not for everyone, and especially with our nation the way it is right now, it would never work. We'd end up breeding a rebel generation of hippies and losers. I just can't see it happening in the USA. We're too large a country, with too many problems. A smaller, stabler country can sustain something like mandatory government service, but mandatory service here borders on the impossible.
My thoughts are a little scattered right now... but that's what I've got. I'll probably be back later.
If any lawmaker looks like they even have the chance to bring this to be, I'll be making tracks to the nearest border and I know of several people who'll be close behind.
Also: Friendly fire isn't friendly. Mandatory service is bad for your health.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited December 2006
I hate when people bring up friendly fire like it's 1) something to be spoken lightly of 2) something that happens all the time
I don't mean to lash out at you in particular, BM, but before anyone comments on friendly fire being some kind of everyday danger, they should try and compare the frequency of friendly fire incidents with the frequency of people dying of lung cancer, aids, malaria, drunk driving, and sheer human negligence.
Friendly fire results from the unfortunate errors made by hardworking servicemen, and otherwise unavoidable circumstance . Please BELIEVE ME when I tell you that safety is paramount in all military operations. It's not like we don't care who we're shooting at. Believing anything else is ignorant and inconsiderate. Friendly fire is an infrequent problem but a very serious issue that we in the military are wary of, every day, and we consistently work to prevent it. I just felt that I should point that out.
Comments
A draft is an example of second order coercion. Its a nation or government, coercing its citizens, into being agents of coercion. Your ego has to be enormous to evoke an "ought" in favor of a draft.
You are a citizen of a society by virtue that you live there and pay your dues to the internal social infrastructure. You have no obligation to agree with the political stance, or values of your country, in fact here, you are legislated that freedom explicitly. Therefore, a draft would result in soldiers fighting a war they don't believe in. Soldiers fighting someone elses war, because there is a prison cell waiting at home for them unless they accept the incoming fire and prison cells of the enemies. It is one of the highest orders of tragedy immaginable by advanced societies today.
War is the result of one group of people trying to impose their will on another. A soldier is an agent of that coercive impulse. I personally can not imagine pointing a gun at someone and telling them who and what they should be. Situations in where there are oppressors should not ideally be solved by counter-opression, but rather intelligence, logic, a deep consideration for ethics, and communication.
A draft is an example of second order coercion. Its a nation or government, coercing its citizens, into being agents of coercion. Your ego has to be enormous to evoke an "ought" in favor of a draft.
You are a citizen of a society by virtue that you live there and pay your dues to the internal social infrastructure. You have no obligation to agree with the political stance, or values of your country, in fact here, you are legislated that freedom explicitly. Therefore, a draft would result in soldiers fighting a war they don't believe in. Soldiers fighting someone elses war, because there is a prison cell waiting at home for them unless they accept the incoming fire and prison cells of the enemies. It is one of the highest orders of tragedy immaginable by advanced societies today.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although the two are quite related, this thread is attempting to debate the advantages / disadvantages of all high school grads pulling a hitch in the armed forces - let's try not to turn this into a debate on war. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
I am a defender of mandatory military service in Sweden. Hey, I view the military with a crapload of scepsism and I personally would very probably not have volunteered for service if it was voluntary when I was of that age. However, precisely these things are what makes me want every single kid out there to serve.
Putting real people reasonable individuals of all classes and backgrounds in the military can only have a good effect. Anything but giving up the power of our national army to people who actually want to have the power. If there was one thing I learned about Sweden and our army is that there are people who definately should not bear arms or have command of troops, and the fewer of these in relation to more composed individuals there are in the military the better.'
Another very important point is the on-going war in Iraq and presumed soon-to-come invasion of Iran and the policy of Sweden in these questions and similar ones. It is simply much harder to gain acceptance to, and put in effect, military support for crap like that if it's 18-19 year old draftees who are sent away after being prodded into voluneering.
The word of one of the later verses of the Internationale holds true as long as the common man is the one doing the fighting. Should a nation be in the hands of a professional army, that army would not be controlled by the people anymore, but those who want to use our pride and hard work for political and economical gain. Wars would be fought not to defend us but for any purpose deemed necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin- The Internationale+ fifth verse--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( The Internationale @ fifth verse)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The kings deceive us with their fumes,
Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants!
Let us encourage strikes in the armies,
To wave their guns and disband their ranks!
If they insist, those cannibals,
To make heroes of us,
They will soon know our bullets,
Are for our own generals.
|: It is the final struggle
Let us gather, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be mankind! :|<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst you say you have learnt some valuable skills in the military (and I agree you do learn valuable skills), why not just improve your education system so that some of these skills are taught earlier in life?
By contrast, the military would have taught me how to stand straight, how to say "yes sir," how to shoot a G3 rifle - and how to sit on my ###### for months on end. Or at least that's what my friends ended up doing.
The reason for this is that the compulsory military service is simply too short to put the conscripts through anything but basic training. Upping the service period is not a good idea. Let's face it - in peace time, a soldier is a waste of money. His job is to kill and get killed. If there's no war, there is no demand for his abilities. And in modern conflicts, conscripts are useless anyway.
But compulsory civil service for a year or so (for BOTH genders - the current system is blatantly sexist) gets my vote.
Mandatory anything is asking for trouble. A choice would be nice, since the military isn't for everyone.
Whilst you say you have learnt some valuable skills in the military (and I agree you do learn valuable skills), why not just improve your education system so that some of these skills are taught earlier in life?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Improving the education system would be fine for the 3 R's, but the military would teach discipline and respect for authority.
Hey, let's educate those who join!
Improving the education system would be fine for the 3 R's, but the military would teach discipline and respect for authority.
Hey, let's educate those who join!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No no, I mean teach the disipline, respect for authority in the school too.
It is that brazen nature of the ego, to control the world and make it into it's own image, that causes all artificial suffering. War is an example, but a mandatory draft is a secondary sort of war on the drafted. Forcing a person to be a tool of force is worse than the original display of inhumanity, because its the same impulse, turned on the citizens of the country that the war hawk claims to love so much.
Tjosan, you had a very good point that if the military is filled with average people then the maniacal nature of those who live for that power might be balanced somewhat. This presupposes that the power of militaries, does, should, or must exist; a view I'd point out is bleak, and depressing.
The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for.
Depot, you seem to be concerned with the "virtues" associated with armed service. I would argue that those virtues are not really virtues. The military values the subordination of the individual to the demands of an "other." In fact, it depends on it. This other is often embodied in this notion of what the soldier "ought" to do. A soldiers "discipline", "respect for authority" whatever you want to call it, are nothing but the call for the subordination of the individual intellect to the machine of war.
It is that brazen nature of the ego, to control the world and make it into it's own image, that causes all artificial suffering. War is an example, but a mandatory draft is a secondary sort of war on the drafted. Forcing a person to be a tool of force is worse than the original display of inhumanity, because its the same impulse, turned on the citizens of the country that the war hawk claims to love so much.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although this is true, it's certainly not all the military will teach you. Many of the good habits I have today can be credited to my military training. Not to mention the excellent electronics training I received or the further education I received because of the GI Bill.
Sad news is many of today's youth lack that, and it's their parents fault. Likewise for a general lack of discipline or respect for authority.
Plus, if you force something on someone, they are not going to want to do it (like 'Nam Draft Dodgers).
So you want to teach the young good habits, right?
Then do it with good parenting. Don't dump it on someone else to do. Doing so just encourages the laziness of society. Don't get someone else to do it. Do it yourself.
You're not going to learn a work ethic at night school though.
Sad news is many of today's youth lack that, and it's their parents fault. Likewise for a general lack of discipline or respect for authority.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, the problem is the teleology. Are you disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you? Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?
I think that working all day and going to night school takes great work ethic.
As already mentioned far to many parents do a lousy job of teaching their children how important it is to have a good work ethic, be punctual and disciplined, or to respect authority - to name just a few things. I work with the results of this daily and have to train many of them.
<!--quoteo(post=1587283:date=Dec 11 2006, 08:29 PM:name=Router_Box)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Router_Box @ Dec 11 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1587283[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
well, the problem is the teleology. Are disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you. Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?
I think that working all day and going to night school takes great work ethic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and yes, and yes, and yes.
And I agree the working AND going to night school would normally be indicative of a healthy work ethic. But one won't learn to have a healthy work ethic AT night school.
The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, whoa, hold on there! What about the Korean war?
You can't look at South Korea compared to North Korea today and tell me the Korean war wasn't worth fighting, or wasn't a legitimate war. You either have a very narrow view of "legitimate", or a very limited view of history that includes "Vietnam" and "Iraq 2003". And maybe "Bosnia".
Are you disciplined because there is some goal you wish to acheive and you are willing to work hard for it? Or are you disciplined when you work in spite of your desires for a goal that doesn't belong to you?
Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status? Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that in some cases, the problem isn't that there is no instruction or modeling for these virtues, but that they take a convoluted form (the ultimate of which is embodied in the military.)
Kids are taught to respect people in authority, for no other reason then simply that person IS a person of authority. This is usually because of their age, or some position they hold. "Kids" realize that "grownups" are just older kids, and that if the edict of the authority is faulty in some way, it does not pay to accept it on principle.
Ideally they would respect those in authority without being told they must, because the authority commands respect, which anyone with a rational understanding will see, including minors. The result is a person's lack of respect for all of authority, not just illigitimate authority. Forcing this issue in the same direction ( a draft) would increase the problem.
The same thing goes for work ethic. Kids aren't in school because they want to become better smarter people, they are in school because they are forced to through high school, and then told they have no chance at a satisfying future without it. This same sort of alienation from the true virtue of work ethic as it would relate to school is what you see, and complain that kids don't have work ethic. Of course not, it was never genuine, and forcing it harder, (like a draft), would increase the problem.
Hey, whoa, hold on there! What about the Korean war?
You can't look at South Korea compared to North Korea today and tell me the Korean war wasn't worth fighting, or wasn't a legitimate war. You either have a very narrow view of "legitimate", or a very limited view of history that includes "Vietnam" and "Iraq 2003". And maybe "Bosnia".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well for starters, the Korean War wasn't an official war, but a "police action" It was the first time that this semantic, legal loophole was used to marginalize congress in decisions concerning this country's military, an important check afforded that branch of government by the United States Constitution. Congress has not declared war since ww2.
Japan took over korea, which was one country, during world war 2. When the US and Russia were fighting japan, Russia attacked the Korean peninsula from the north, and the States attacked it from the south. They split the country along the 38th latitude, and in the aftermath of ww2 messed everything up. Instead of returning political control to the residents of the peninsula, to do with as THEY chose, Russia and the US set up respective puppet governments according to both countries ideology. In a nationalistic effort to unify the country, the north korean president lobbied stalin hard for permission to invade south korea in an effort to reunite the country. Stalin agreed, and Truman was pressured by republicans in congress, namely McCarthy, to staunch the expansion of communism.
So like I've been saying in my post, the korean war was just another example of people demanding that others live by the "correct" ideologies, and effectivly waging propoganda wars against the public in order to gather enough political support for the apathetic masses to allow it to happen.
<!--quoteo(post=1587300:date=Dec 11 2006, 10:00 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 11 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1587300[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I have to take issue with "Forcing this issue in the same direction ( a draft) would increase the problem." because I've seen where that's simply not true, up close and personal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were drafted into the viet nam war, and you feel that it was a positive experience for yourself and/or others, then you would know more about that then I would. However, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
The iraq war is bullish, and in fact America has not fought a legitimate war since ww2. This matters to the question at hand because you can't separate the war from the armies and politicians waging it, and you can't separate the draft from those armies that it supports. If this country's policies are anything, they certainly aren't something to kill or die for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is one of my main reasons for supporting a draft army in Sweden. Politicians can send armies of volunteer professional soldiers anywhere for any reason with vague explanations, and no one can really stop them especially when the people fighting want or at least appear to want to fight. Trying to send "our boys" to war is much harder than sending "our soldiers".
It is my firm belief that this is exactly what made the US change their policy and abolish their system of drafting the general populace after Vietnam. It wasn't mainly because of the efficiency or cost of the army, it was because the existing system made it politically impossible to wage any similar war within the forseable future. Basically it was a military strategical decision to lessen the effects of the "war at home" part of modern nationalistic warfare. Something that had gradually turned into a medial war effort against the general populace at home rather than a national front to support the war effort abroad materially.
I want to delay this process as long as possible in my country, and I think you should look long and hard for how your military is used and why it is possible for the authorities to use it in that manner.
On the point Depot is pushing: the experiences, historically, of trying to promote discipline and work ethics through military fostering can be summed up in just a very few words. "Look at the last day of the defense of Berlin."
But hey we all love the Jugend, don't we?
Heil!
[Edit] Upon rereading my post I notice I misspelled Depot's nickname as "Despot". This was in no way intentional, although it may seems so. All I can blame is that it's almost 3.30 am as I write this and I'm starting to lack in concentration. My apologies.
Again, I understand that what I originally proposed is related to various wars, but I really don't want this thread turning into a war discussion. There have been some good points and counter-points, so let's stay on topic please.
In a nationalistic effort to unify the country, the north korean president lobbied stalin hard for permission to invade south korea in an effort to reunite the country. Stalin agreed, and Truman was pressured by republicans in congress, namely McCarthy, to staunch the expansion of communism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you say that was a good decision or a bad decision by Truman? In light of the comparative living standards of North and South Korea today, I have absolutely no qualms in saying that was a completely 100% good decision to defend South Korea.
But perhaps you'd have preferred to skip the propaganda war, and not impose our political will on South Korea? After all, who's to say they would like capitalism better than serving Kim Jong Il anyway? I'm surprised they havent already taken a vote for National Unification, and allowed the DPRK to annex them. I don't know why they bother putting millions of landmines on their northern border...
Would you say that was a good decision or a bad decision by Truman? In light of the comparative living standards of North and South Korea today, I have absolutely no qualms in saying that was a completely 100% good decision to defend South Korea.
But perhaps you'd have preferred to skip the propaganda war, and not impose our political will on South Korea? After all, who's to say they would like capitalism better than serving Kim Jong Il anyway? I'm surprised they havent already taken a vote for National Unification, and allowed the DPRK to annex them. I don't know why they bother putting millions of landmines on their northern border...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not a thread to debate the pros and cons of going to war or to delve into any particular war. Please re-read the first post, the post right above your last one, and get back on topic. Please.
If the way you live is a superior way to live, it will speak for itself. It doesn't need guns to spread. I doubt you would argue that the USSR collapsed because we held on to south korea. Or that the US has enjoyed supremacy, because we held onto korea. I'd argue that Korea, when it comes down to it, had little to do with the fates of either super power. A lot of people died though.
Depot, I'm still having trouble with your conceptions of "respect for authority" and "discipline, " and don't feel like you've responded to my questions about them.
tjosan, very insightful thoughts on the abolition of the draft!
Depot, I'm still having trouble with your conceptions of "respect for authority" and "discipline, " and don't feel like you've responded to my questions about them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I answered yes to all four of your questions. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--coloro:#33CC00--><span style="color:#33CC00"><!--/coloro-->Do you respect someone who is in a position of authority because they are respectable people who have earned that status?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Or do you respect the authority figure by virtue that they ARE an authority figure?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying yes to all four questions doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that the green sentences are valid, but not the red ones. The mere fact that someone is an authoritative position, is no reason to respect them outright. Likewise working in spite of your own desires for a goal belonging to someone else, has no intrinsic merit.
I think that we need to be examining why we do what we do, and why others do what they do, and why and how people coerce each other to different actions.
And I'm currently studying with monetary support from the danish state. Just like the U.S. "GI bill," this money comes from the state, which ultimately means the tax payers of today. I, in turn, will through my taxes pay for the education of future generations, and so on. While this system is associated with the military in the U.S., it doesn't have to be.
I don't think blanket respect for authority is a desirable thing to teach. We should be teaching a baseline of respect for everyone regardless of station, and additional respect for those that deserve it.
The function of military training is primarily to produce people that are skilled in organized violence. I don't think we really need more of that. Anything else is at best a positive side effect.
I'm sympathetic to wanting a more structured upbringing for our youth, but I don't think the military is the right way to do it. As a society I think we need to start putting more effort into maintaining social communities instead of into our personal entertainment. What we really need is more social exposure with mixed ages of people, not boot camp.
I don't have the time or the energy to completely spell out my opinion, but the short of it is this:
I'm sure most of us who are in our now young adult lives, working a steady job or trying, value our own discipline, motivation for success, work ethic, moral standards, etc. Or what little of these things we do have. Military service has, thus far, taught me innumerable and invaluable lessons... but the price to pay for such knowledge and experience is too much for anyone who does not want it that way. The benefits to ones character and maturity are great, but it is definitely not for everyone, and especially with our nation the way it is right now, it would never work. We'd end up breeding a rebel generation of hippies and losers. I just can't see it happening in the USA. We're too large a country, with too many problems. A smaller, stabler country can sustain something like mandatory government service, but mandatory service here borders on the impossible.
My thoughts are a little scattered right now... but that's what I've got. I'll probably be back later.
Also: Friendly fire isn't friendly. Mandatory service is bad for your health.
1) something to be spoken lightly of
2) something that happens all the time
I don't mean to lash out at you in particular, BM, but before anyone comments on friendly fire being some kind of everyday danger, they should try and compare the frequency of friendly fire incidents with the frequency of people dying of lung cancer, aids, malaria, drunk driving, and sheer human negligence.
Friendly fire results from the unfortunate errors made by hardworking servicemen, and otherwise unavoidable circumstance . Please BELIEVE ME when I tell you that safety is paramount in all military operations. It's not like we don't care who we're shooting at. Believing anything else is ignorant and inconsiderate. Friendly fire is an infrequent problem but a very serious issue that we in the military are wary of, every day, and we consistently work to prevent it. I just felt that I should point that out.