PDA

View Full Version : Military Conscription


Lemony_Orange
18th-November-2011, 11:24 PM
Should military conscription be needed?


debate over this issue from both sides (if you're not sure of which then you can just write out some good points from each side).

EyeSeeCold
19th-November-2011, 03:21 AM
If you choose to willfully remain in a state, meaning you agree to be subject to the state's laws and regulations, and in return receive privileges and rights, I do believe you owe your life to fight when that state is under direct attack. It's your home and your covenant by residing there.

However I don't agree with conscription for wars and battles overseas, in such situations people are just tools for a protected leader's agenda. Although every military position isn't one on the frontlines dealing with combat, any military occupation is still a form of support.

Though my position becomes complicated to maintain because some overseas conflicts are in some way connected to homeland protection. It's difficult to discern offensive efforts from justified pre-emptive defensive measures, and when it's not sufficient to just wait for the enemy to come attack on your soil.

dala
19th-November-2011, 10:41 PM
I would argue that most people don't really 'willfully remain' in a state anymore than they 'willfully remain' in their family. They are born into it, and emancipating themselves is often difficult or impossible.

As for conscription itself, I see it as immoral, for the same reason that any form of forced servitude is immoral: it takes away a persons autonomy. Even worse, it forces people in a position where they are likely to be physically or psychologically damaged, for a cause that they may not agree with or may even oppose. I, for one, do not believe that any government has the moral authority to force this on me or anyone else.

Jah
19th-November-2011, 11:18 PM
Should be needed ?



For what?


It depends on which world you live in/want to live in.


Either you worry, in which case you'll find it necessary to educate people in how to defend/attack if necessary:

Or you're a dirty socialist who think that's the job of the Police or the Government.




Hah.

But really; no.
It's not a necessary part of any life, though it can be a rewarding lesson if it is done properly.

Everybody should meet some resistance at some point, learn to develop a fighter/warrior side to their mentality, even if it is a peaceful/passive kind.

It's probably about balance.



But conscription:
Don't force people to do shit.
Lure them, con them, manipulate them or otherwise demonstrate higher mental faculty, but don't force them with threats of punishment... that's just low, and leaves you with unmotivated shithead soldiers.

The Frood
19th-November-2011, 11:41 PM
I agree with conscription, because it makes wars unpopular. You are much more likely to write your congressman or protest to stop an "unjust" war if your life or your son's life is on the line rather then some (probably poor/minority/working class) guy who signed up himself.

With conscription, there had better be a good reason to go to war (being attacked/having wars declared upon us as in WW2) or at least one that the public can agree the cause is worth fighting for. Otherwise, the public turns against you as casualties rise (Vietnam).

With a volunteer army it is politically easier to get into wars such as Iraq or Afghanistan (which incidentally are illegal(congressional declaration of war anyone?) because there is a smaller effect on the general populace.

downsowf
20th-November-2011, 12:05 AM
Should conscription be needed: Like ^ said, it makes politicians more accountable. That's the benefit. Perhaps less wars would be waged. This reminds me of the debate about wars of necessity and wars of choice.

I don't like the whole idea of being forced to do something you don't want to do though. Most likely, the privileged/rich/aristocratic will figure out a way to get out of fighting and the less fortunate will be the individuals who have to die for country as usually happens in history

downsowf
20th-November-2011, 12:24 AM
With a volunteer army it is politically easier to get into wars such as Iraq or Afghanistan (which incidentally are illegal(congressional declaration of war anyone?) because there is a smaller effect on the general populace.

Technically speaking, the President did get congressional approval for both of these wars. So they were constitutionally legal. Also, from a legal standpoint, the Libya war was unconstitutional because no congressional approval was given. The administration simply just went to the UN. Whether they were right or wrong is a different debate all together. However, Presidents have been ignoring this constitutional requirement, and finding loopholes, for some time now. It's sort of like how the 4th amendment (illegal search and seizure) has been completely butchered over the past 20 years.

Dapper Dan
20th-November-2011, 12:29 AM
If you can institute a draft in this day and age without a massive public rebellion, that draft is probably needed. Then again, the only way that will happen is if someone openly invades, which isn't very likely for most first-world countries.

ProxyAmenRa
20th-November-2011, 12:36 AM
The military would teach me how to kill. I would probably kill the people who conscripted me. It is a stupid idea to arm slaves.

Reluctantly
20th-November-2011, 03:13 AM
Should military conscription be needed?


debate over this issue from both sides (if you're not sure of which then you can just write out some good points from each side).

I don't know. What is the philosophy of war?

A22
20th-November-2011, 04:14 AM
I do not agree. I'd desert in case of war. Perhaps me probably being drafted next year makes my opinion sort of biased but anyway...

If you choose to willfully remain in a state, meaning you agree to be subject to the state's laws and regulations, and in return receive privileges and rights, I do believe you owe your life to fight when that state is under direct attack. It's your home and your covenant by residing there.

However I don't agree with conscription for wars and battles overseas, in such situations people are just tools for a protected leader's agenda. Although every military position isn't one on the frontlines dealing with combat, any military occupation is still a form of support.

Though my position becomes complicated to maintain because some overseas conflicts are in some way connected to homeland protection. It's difficult to discern offensive efforts from justified pre-emptive defensive measures, and when it's not sufficient to just wait for the enemy to come attack on your soil.

Isn't paying taxes good enought? I have to give my life to my country because of the benefits I have?


I agree with conscription, because it makes wars unpopular. You are much more likely to write your congressman or protest to stop an "unjust" war if your life or your son's life is on the line rather then some (probably poor/minority/working class) guy who signed up himself.

With conscription, there had better be a good reason to go to war (being attacked/having wars declared upon us as in WW2) or at least one that the public can agree the cause is worth fighting for. Otherwise, the public turns against you as casualties rise (Vietnam).

With a volunteer army it is politically easier to get into wars such as Iraq or Afghanistan (which incidentally are illegal(congressional declaration of war anyone?) because there is a smaller effect on the general populace.

I don't think that's a good reason for conscription. Just make anti-war commercials.

EyeSeeCold
20th-November-2011, 11:41 AM
I would argue that most people don't really 'willfully remain' in a state anymore than they 'willfully remain' in their family. They are born into it, and emancipating themselves is often difficult or impossible.
True, a lot of people are born into circumstances that are difficult or impossible to change. However people are still responsible for the decision of living legally within a state or not; citizenship can always be renounced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship


Isn't paying taxes good enought? I have to give my life to my country because of the benefits I have?No. Because you live there, the physical land. When it comes down to it that's all that matters, who's going to get that land. Do you want someone to come in and take the land from under your feet? Or are you going to fight for your home?

The state is merely a geo-political bond connecting other people than just you and your family, in times of war.

A22
20th-November-2011, 09:32 PM
No. Because you live there, the physical land. When it comes down to it that's all that matters, who's going to get that land. Do you want someone to come in and take the land from under your feet? Or are you going to fight for your home?

The state is merely a geo-political bond connecting other people than just you and your family, in times of war.

Honestly, I wouldn't fight. I don't know what I'd do but I wouldn't fight for that. It's just not reason enough to die for.

All conflicts for land end up in death and devastation. It's easier to move I guess.

ProxyAmenRa
21st-November-2011, 01:40 AM
Psychology of war:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/OriginsOfWar

Dr. Freeman
21st-November-2011, 06:16 PM
The military would teach me how to kill. I would probably kill the people who conscripted me. It is a stupid idea to arm slaves.

Because it has never been done well.

Janissaries

Felan
22nd-November-2011, 05:52 PM
I sometimes wonder if a 2 year mandatory service for everyone wouldn't be more beneficial than harmful. Not strictly for fighting a war, there are plenty of opportunities domestically that benefit from coordinating massive groups of people. Disasters in particular come to mind. There are societal benefits to having a common club that spans across subcultures and economic classes.

Learning to fight and operate in a large unit would still be a part of the service and if a war broke out that required more troops the mandatory service group would provide an initial buffer of partially readied soldiers.

EditorOne
22nd-November-2011, 07:18 PM
Practically speaking, the existence of a draft does tend to keep the warmongers in line. Had we had the draft in the past decade, the Iraq war would have been over much more quickly, because as soon as everyone had the epiphany that "this is a very sad and terrible mistake" anyone in line to go die for a mistake would have howled all the way to the voting booth.

On the other hand, this thread is at least a cousin of the one on "duty." Whether one chooses to be born into a particular society is a spurious argument for not defending it. Nobody has a choice in where to be born. Everyone, however, has this question to answer: If you enjoy the benefits of living in a particular society, is it fair to say "not me" if the time comes to contribute to its continued existence?
That goes for "two years of some kind of service." I'd have opted for that at age 21, and so would thousands of my peers; in fact a great many took what volunteer options were available, with the Peace Corps and whatnot, precisely to "do their duty."
(This takes out of the issue the possibility that one is born into a society where the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. A majority of Libyans apparently reached the conclusion that's where they were, but the result of their thinking was regime change, at some risk, rather than a retreat into personal self-preservation mode.)

walfin
5th-December-2011, 10:26 AM
Sucks because it is sexist. Israel is the only place that does the right thing by conscripting the women and wasting their time too.