Conscription?

[Thorns]

I made this thread after watching a programme on television about how Australia was divided by the conscription debate during World War I and I thought it was pretty interesting.

Conscription as we know it today means forced enlistment in the armed forces. I know that some countries conscript their men when under attack, and some countries have compulsory combat training. But what I want to know is, what is your opinion on conscription? Do you think conscription is good or bad? Do you know anyone who has been conscripted?

Personally, I think if a man doesn't want to shoot someone, he shouldn't have to shoot someone. I think that conscription in most cases is wrong, but I can certainly see why someone would want to implement it (especially if your country was being invaded).

 

[Firestorm]

Absolutely horrible idea. I find it shameful that Canada did it during both World Wars. It didn't do much good except divide the population as most conscripts never even reached the frontlines due to how late in the war it was enacted. If someone doesn't want to fight, they don't want to fight. I could never see myself shooting another living thing - let alone a human being - and if I were conscripted, I'd have to figure out some loophole or flee the country.

No matter what I do, I can't help but see the guy on the other side as someone who was forced to fight for a cause they don't even support.

 

[Olie]

Yeah I hate the idea of conscription. In Canada in ww1, we had a temporary conscription. Canada was still largely tied to Britain and our Prime minister felt the need to help them by doing this. In "British" Canada, it was largely successful and welcomed, but in Quebec (French Canada), people were out to kill the PM for even suggesting it. In stark contrast, French Canada felt removed from Britain's plight. They felt little attachment to the Imperial mother country and viewed the Canadian army as an almost entirely English Canadian institution. I like to feel this is one of the reasons that many Quebecois want to separate.


Yeah basically my opinion is similar to that of Firestorm's. I'm sure if you asked around Canada, you'd hear a similar plea.
(and the ww2 conscription was not nearly as damaging to the nation as the first)

 

[Mountain Dewgong]

I have a very limited knowledge of conscription, only really knowing about specific examples like Cassius Clay, the Uncle Sam posters in the US and the various methods used in Europe during the two World Wars.

Though I think New Zealand has mimicked Australia's conscription stance in regard to mass disputes during World War I, and if I recall correctly, conscription ended here in the early 1970's.

We have shit all military, and that's understandable for a country so far away from everything, with a volunteer military and our big brother Australia is there to look after us, a country which has firm ties with the US, and we can't forget Britain, as a part of the commonwealth we would surely have some sort of treaty to aid us. We probably only have to worry about the invasion of Indonesia or something along those lines.

According to Wikipedia....
Active personnel: 9,051 (ranked 129)
Reserve personnel: 2,240
Deployed personnel: 672
Percent of GDP: 1% (lol)

Though we have a highly respected elite special forces squad called the SAS, which is currently helping in Afghanistan.

Call me a 'trendy lefty,' but I'm firmly against conscription and believe that it is definitely the wrong way to go about things, forcing people to fight is an horrible idea.

Dunno, maybe I've read too many Wilfred Owen poems.

 

[billymills]

Because there's not enough Canadians here already:

Conscription is terrible, we had conscription in both wars only after a federal election (basically a plebiscite) on the issue. Voting to force others to go to war, which I can't ever see as a good thing.

That's basically the only thing I have to add on the issue. Mostly agreeing with Firestorm that it was largely ineffective, and it did serve to divide Canada on already shaky faults. I can't really compare WWI conscription to WWII conscription, because I see them as largely similar.

 

[hobo bob]

I would have to say conscription is wrong most of the time but there are always justifiable exceptions. Just look at Isreal. All men are givin military training and in the case of emergency they are sent to the front lines. This is necessary because they are surrounded by a pissed off Muslims in each direction. They need this draft so that way if Israeli enemies start some kind of invasion, they can easily be stopped. Seeing as it is self defense from hostile countries, it is the best option in their situation.

Don't believe it works? Israel has been invaded from multiple countries at THE SAME TIME and guess what? They ended that shit in 6 days. Israel is considered to have one of the best military forces in the world. Without conscription, Israel would have become Palestein by now.

 

[akuchi]

Or without massive help from America, you know, either way.

Needless to say I'm against it as I'm a pacifist.

 

[hobo bob]

Needless to say I'm against it as I'm a pacifist.

Yea usually I am too, but that was an obvious case of self-defense.

By the way the Egyptians and their allies recieved massive aid from the Soviet Union (which ended up just getting destroyed by Israeli air forces).

 

[Nate]

I'm all for conscription.

One thing that I think is being overlooked here is how the current lack of conscription in America allows us to be in two wars simultaneously while very few people back home really care in the least. It seems that most people don't know a single person even in the military, never mind anybody in active duty in a danger zone. Conscription has the effect of bringing the conflict to the minds of everybody, not just the patriotic (or poor, looking for a better life) few. What's the end result of this? Accountability.

Think back on how much larger and more prevalent anti-war protests to the Vietnam war were. That's not just a function of time, it's also a function of apathy. In addition, most protests use the plight of innocents as their chief argument against the conflict. While a valid point, it certainly is a change from the rhetoric of Vietnam, when the anti-war sentiment was fueled to a large extent by the young masses who didn't want to fight. The "bring our troops home" slogan is a rarity these days. After all, they chose to fight, right? And who even knows anybody over there? I imagine most people in this thread would be a lot more likely to take to the streets if they were about to face the reality of the conflicts themselves. In order for the military to be held accountable to the public, the public first needs to give a damn.

 

[KnightoftheWind]

Conscription is, in my opinion, a violation of human rights. Forcing someone to go and kill other human beings, and potentially get killed themselves with imprisonment if they refuse isn't very humane.

 

[Polis4rule]

One thing that I think is being overlooked here is how the current lack of conscription in America allows us to be in two wars simultaneously while very few people back home really care in the least. It seems that most people don't know a single person even in the military, never mind anybody in active duty in a danger zone. Conscription has the effect of bringing the conflict to the minds of everybody, not just the patriotic (or poor, looking for a better life) few. What's the end result of this? Accountability.

I kinda agree with your message. Just attending boot camp and all, in my opinion, teaches important lessons on discipline, respect of superiors (or related objects), and how to take care of yourself, just to name a few. I know that some people already have these skills, but nowadays most people do not have some or all of these skills (at least just looking around America today).

Regardless, the current conscription policy is just for times of an enemy attack. That for me creates peace of mind that if someone does want to fuck with us, we can at least provide a little resistance.

For another debate topic, I personally think the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy should be repealed.

 

[Lil Fox]

Conscription? No way.

Personally, I think if a man doesn't want to shoot someone, he shouldn't have to shoot someone. I think that conscription in most cases is wrong, but I can certainly see why someone would want to implement it (especially if your country was being invaded).

I don't think conscription is good at all. If a country is being invaded, wouldn't the defenders, Military or not, want to fight back anyways? Of course, for most of us, the answer would be no, so it would be necessary. However, even when it does become necessary, I am still against it. Killing somebody is not easy (for most) and forcing somebody to do that is very wrong. I agree that it might be necessary, but I am for the most part, against it.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm all for conscription.

Accountability.

Think back on how much larger and more prevalent anti-war protests to the Vietnam war were. That's not just a function of time, it's also a function of apathy. In addition, most protests use the plight of innocents as their chief argument against the conflict. While a valid point, it certainly is a change from the rhetoric of Vietnam, when the anti-war sentiment was fueled to a large extent by the young masses who didn't want to fight. The "bring our troops home" slogan is a rarity these days. After all, they chose to fight, right? And who even knows anybody over there? I imagine most people in this thread would be a lot more likely to take to the streets if they were about to face the reality of the conflicts themselves. In order for the military to be held accountable to the public, the public first needs to give a damn.

I see what you're getting at, but there has to be a better way to boost morale and interest than forcing people into a war zone. Starting conscription now would be a surefire way to piss people off to the point where the government would HAVE to end the wars...but seriously? You are willing to sacrifice people's lives just to get people's attention? I don't have that in me...luckily the Army thinks I'm too much of a distraction to fight and die for my country so I won't be going to war anytime soon :)

 

[Trax]

One thing that I think is being overlooked here is how the current lack of conscription in America allows us to be in two wars simultaneously while very few people back home really care in the least.

This is a bad thing for what reason exactly?

Not caring about things that don't have any impact on your life is a fairly logical response.


Anyway, Conscription is the reason I keep my British/EU passport active, damned if I'm going to fight a war that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Eraddd]

Military training= should be mandatory. Might get some fatasses out of their beds and start shedding some pounds. Lots of valuable skills such as discipline, etc etc.

But...

Conscription= Hell no. If you want to fight, you can fight. If you don't want to, stay back. I don't want any soldiers who don't want to fight, to jeopardize a mission. Send 1000 conscripted soldiers who don't want to fight, and compare them to 1000 soldiers who do.

I'm not a pacifist, I just don't see what conscription really brings to the table as people claim.

 

[Harro237]

Im personally against the idea of conscription. I believe that you should only fight if you want to. However, if my country was invaded, I would definitely want to help out.

 

[Luduan]

Although I would not necessarily call myself a 'pacifist', I am completely opposed to war and do not believe in the necessity of (and mindless allegiance to) nation-states, so my answer seems fairly obvious.

I kinda agree with your message. Just attending boot camp and all, in my opinion, teaches important lessons on discipline, respect of superiors (or related objects), and how to take care of yourself, just to name a few. I know that some people already have these skills, but nowadays most people do not have some or all of these skills (at least just looking around America today).

Military-style discipline isn't exactly the noblest of virtues to be extolling.

Not caring about things that don't have any impact on your life is a fairly logical response.

I find this ironic given your signature.

 

[Polis4rule]

Military-style discipline isn't exactly the noblest of virtues to be extolling.

And lack of discipline is? Our society has become so disgusting that a bit of military discipline would do good.

 

[chenman333]

Would the US have invaded Iraq if there was a draft?

Doubt it. A draft would have taken away the popular support of the invasion of Iraq, and would have made politicians much more fearful of sending off sons and daughters with voting parents to die for virtually nothing.

 

[TAY]

I see what you're getting at, but there has to be a better way to boost morale and interest than forcing people into a war zone. Starting conscription now would be a surefire way to piss people off to the point where the government would HAVE to end the wars...but seriously? You are willing to sacrifice people's lives just to get people's attention? I don't have that in me...luckily the Army thinks I'm too much of a distraction to fight and die for my country so I won't be going to war anytime soon :)

I agree completely with what Nate is saying. If my country is going to go to war then it had better do a damn good job of it and have a damn good reason. The current servicemen have been overworked almost to the point of abuse (e.g. not getting their required time off and being called back for multiple tours beyond their contracts). Why should they risk their lives for this country over and over again when it isn't what they signed up for in the first place? That is only a small step better than forcing people into the military. If a few people have to die in combat to stop America from continuing to do stupid shit (which will likely wind up killing more people anyway) then so be it. If the country needs more troops, it should institute a draft. It is disgusting that America will take a half-assed approach to a war and screw over the people who signed up to serve the country just so the two parties can save themselves in the polls.

This is the same shit that happens with taxes: the government has no money and is spending billions on a war, but will not raise taxes because it looks bad. Both of my parents are out of about 30% of their salaries because of California's budget bullshit...and people are still whining that their taxes might get raised (but they won't because Arnold is retarded). Someone is getting screwed no matter what approach the government takes to both the draft and taxes. The current approach just prevents people from caring.

EDIT: Also, you can say that 'there has to be a better way to raise morale and interest'...but the government is interested in reducing interest, which is exactly the problem. The current approach is designed to make people care about and feel the impacts of war as little as possible.

 

[Trax]

I find this ironic given your signature.

The signature is merely pointing out how wasteful our society is with money in general.

Besides, given I have two family members in Zambia right now and poverty over there does have an impact on them albeit an indirect one (and obviously, I care about my family), you might want to rethink your statements.

 

[Luduan]

The signature is merely pointing out how wasteful our society is with money in general.

Besides, given I have two family members in Zambia right now and poverty over there does have an impact on them albeit an indirect one (and obviously, I care about my family), you might want to rethink your statements.

To expand on the real problem I have with your statement: apathy tacitly supports the status quo. The United States' government, which American citizens nominally elect, spends massive amounts of tax money to wage illegal wars of aggression; to attempt the overthrow of other governments (most recent examples include 2002 Venezuela, 2003 Iraq, 2004 Haiti); to support terrorist states and organizations; and to build expensive, and unnecessary, permanent military bases around the world, to give a few examples. Leaving morality and the law aside, this seems like a rather egregious waste of money.

Our foreign policy has a direct and generally negative impact on the lives of millions around the world. This in turn impacts citizens of the United States, directly through instances of blowback and indirectly through general anti-American sentiment abroad. To use Iraq as a case study: when Bush II declared Gulf War Redux, it would be naïve to think that Iraqi Shiites had so quickly forgotten the United States' complicity and duplicity as Saddam crushed their uprisings in 1991 under the recumbent gaze of Stormin' Norman. It would also be naïve to think that Iraqis are likely to quickly forget the million or so casualties they have suffered from two decades of US sanctions and war. Al Qaeda (like Saddam, a former US client) certainly gave dramatic and sanguinary air to its grievances on 11 September.

In the States ignorance and indifference permits such incidents to occur in a contextual vacuum, devoid of cause and effect, allowing laughable asininity like 'they hate our freedom' to pass as reasonable explanation. Rather than eliminate the source of the hostility by addressing legitimate grievances and curbing adventurism, leaders can manipulate events and mobilize public furor to legitimize further rapacious aggression, a superficial 'solution' in reality designed to focus popular sentiment as martial jingoism in the pursuit of narrow private interests. Only a vigilant, active, and informed citizenry can preclude such obfuscation and exercise a truly effective, unadulterated collective will.