If Drafted, Would You Serve?

[10Seven]

If a nation needs conscription in order to fill troop commitments for international activity, then, it follows, that activity is unpopular - therefore, such an act in a 'democratic' nation is, arguably, undemocratic and immoral.

If a nation needs consription in order to defend it's borders and/or self-determination then, it follows that activity is unpopular and the society or government is unpopular - therefore...

Conscription is a sign of an immoral and unrepresentative government - where the major activity of military force is the imposition of it's government's will whether upon it's own citizens or those of another nation.

 

[boogaboo]

If a nation needs conscription in order to fill troop commitments for international activity, then, it follows, that activity is unpopular - therefore, such an act in a 'democratic' nation is, arguably, undemocratic and immoral.

If a nation needs consription in order to defend it's borders and/or self-determination then, it follows that activity is unpopular and the society or government is unpopular - therefore...

Conscription is a sign of an immoral and unrepresentative government - where the major activity of military force is the imposition of it's government's will whether upon it's own citizens or those of another nation.

Yes, unless you are somewhat popular and still get attacked

 

[boogaboo]

@Boogaboo :

Sorry Boogaboo if you take wrong what I've said. If I mentionned Israeli girls, it's simply because the military service is mandatory for them (2 years IIRC). In France, women have never been drafted, however, we are a larger country where women are usually used in factories during world wars.

Actually, I've seen a documentary on Tel Aviv recently. It's weird to imagine a whole youth being sent for 2 or 3 years at the Army. Some of them going to Palestinan checkpoints. Well, anyway, on that documentary, they were saying that after the military service, many young people were fleeing to India during several months to take some drugs and stuff. I understand that. We definitly need an escape after living things like that.

Anyway, what a weird country is yours . If I had times, I think I would go there for a while.

Women served 2 years, now down to 20 months.
Everybody go through roughlt the same ordeal in the army, and this is a uniting factor here, since many people were originally jewish immigrants from other places.

We're not "fleeing" to India, we're making a 1-2 year trip after the military before continuing with life.
India is a great place to enjoy life.
My sister went on an India-Thailand-Australia 1-year tour.
I just did a Amsterdam-Paris route (alone..) for 1 month, and went to the Tel-Aviv University...

 

[Drewcifer]

I can't answer the poll as I am too old to be drafted in the US (by 10 fortunate months). If that were not the case you can be rest assured that I would be looking for a new life in Canada (not in Winnipeg though, it's close but too damn cold). At least that would be the case in this war. In another more existential (original meaning of the word) and less imperialistic war it would be different, I would be at the front of the queue for a war against nazilike fascism. If the draft still existed here our politicians would be much more thoughtful about military solutions. Afghanistan probably would have still happened, Iraq probably not.

 

[nonconformist]

After thinking, I have put myself into this position: if I don't agree, I don't serve. If I do agree, and my country is invaded, I might fight. Otherwise, I would make myself a cocincious objector, or otherwise take a non-combat rol (not for cowardice, but as a matter of principle-I might have taken on a role of medic or engineer).

 

[10Seven]

Yes, unless you are somewhat popular and still get attacked

No unless, at all.

If the society is popular, conscription is entirely unecessary, due to popular support and action.

 

[stormbind]

If a nation needs conscription in order to fill troop commitments for international activity, then, it follows, that activity is unpopular - therefore, such an act in a 'democratic' nation is, arguably, undemocratic and immoral.

If a nation needs consription in order to defend it's borders and/or self-determination then, it follows that activity is unpopular and the society or government is unpopular - therefore...

Conscription is a sign of an immoral and unrepresentative government - where the major activity of military force is the imposition of it's government's will whether upon it's own citizens or those of another nation.

 

[boogaboo]

No unless, at all.

If the society is popular, conscription is entirely unecessary, due to popular support and action.

I don't agree, and I take Israel as an example, or even Taiwan.
I won't start an Israel thread here though..

 

[ICBM]

To all the Americans you said they would fight if their America was invaded; does that include terrorist attacks?

 

[GerrardCapashen]

To all the Americans you said they would fight if their America was invaded; does that include terrorist attacks?

Having more conscripted troops doesn't make it easier to fight plague or destroyed buildings. Thus there is no point in holding a draft under such circumstances.

 

[crystal]

If a nation needs conscription in order to fill troop commitments for international activity, then, it follows, that activity is unpopular - therefore, such an act in a 'democratic' nation is, arguably, undemocratic and immoral.

If a nation needs consription in order to defend it's borders and/or self-determination then, it follows that activity is unpopular and the society or government is unpopular - therefore...

Conscription is a sign of an immoral and unrepresentative government - where the major activity of military force is the imposition of it's government's will whether upon it's own citizens or those of another nation.

So you're saying that, for example, Scandinavian nations (especially Finland) have immoral and unrepresentative governments? If that was not what you meant, try to be more specific in your posts.

 

[Adebisi]

If a nation needs conscription in order to fill troop commitments for international activity, then, it follows, that activity is unpopular - therefore, such an act in a 'democratic' nation is, arguably, undemocratic and immoral.

If a nation needs consription in order to defend it's borders and/or self-determination then, it follows that activity is unpopular and the society or government is unpopular - therefore...

Conscription is a sign of an immoral and unrepresentative government - where the major activity of military force is the imposition of it's government's will whether upon it's own citizens or those of another nation.

1. This is not true due to nature of war. A big nation might not need conscription simply because it can gather a sufficient force without it. There is also a correlation between the size of a nation and it's attitude towards conscription, but no correlation between conscription and the popularity of the government that I know of.
2. Military action is not necesserily "right" just because it is "popular".

I'm not necesserily defending conscription here. The state should defend itself in the best way possibly while keeping the violations of the rights of its citizens to a minimum. Sadly, conscription might be the best option here in much of todays world...

 

[EzInKy]

1. This is not true due to nature of war. A big nation might not need conscription simply because it can gather a sufficient force without it. There is also a correlation between the size of a nation and it's attitude towards conscription, but no correlation between conscription and the popularity of the government that I know of.
2. Military action is not necesserily "right" just because it is "popular".

3. Many people won't voluntarily fight for anything whether they believe in it or not.

 

[10Seven]

It's unfortunate that all these opinions were not, apparently, around when there was a thread on the matter of consription, and related issues - such as defense. If you're interested, you might like to look back - the question was to a nation disbanding it's armed forces.

Nevertheless, the overt goal of a national military force is almost always 'defence of freedom'. The real use for such a force is, however, the maintenance of a social status quo, and, most importantly, the governing force. EDIT: and imposing it's governing force on it's neighbours.

Examples of Israel and Taiwan are excellent.

There are no exceptions now or ever - conscription is a tool for mass and forced labour for unpopular activity. This applies to Taiwan, Israel, the World Wars, Vietnam War, defence, public work, and any other - anyone wishing to disagree on these points will likely need, as justifications, the many and frequent assertions made in various media - this is example of social engineering by the governing force in order to justify and manipulate the wider society.

A good example of the relationship is the US department, during the second world war, responsible for civil motivation - whose role was to motivate the population through various means, mostly mis-information (look up the false POW letters claiming abuse under the stamp) and a tendency toward sympathy in both the USA and Britain for then Fascist sentiment. The rights and wrongs are irrelevant - the attitude in general - not it's particular bent - is. There will be other factors, perhaps against the argument, but generally, the idea is sound, and becomes even more coherant when considering Israel now, and the Vietnam war.

The utilisation of conscription, also being a method of forced labour, is distinctly undemocratic and immoral - in a truelly democratic nation, such a force is completely unecessary for any of the overt reasons for conscription.

Anyone disagreeing should consider how happy they would be if I were to come over to their house, tell them they're working for me, no matter what excuse, and I'll pay them whatever I feel is appropriate. If you don't like it, I will either beat you, put you in a cage, or inflict such social abuse as to make said abuse no different to the other two options.

No one will honestly say that is ok.


Regarding the previous two posts -

This aspect as to the nature of war, and people's motivation to fight is addressed at moderate length in the aforementioned post...

 

[Plexus]

I'd serve if I was drafted.

 

[CurtSibling]

Since the chance of a draft in the UK is zero, I am not giving a damn about it!

 

[EzInKy]

Nevertheless, the overt goal of a national military force is almost always 'defence of freedom'. The real use for such a force is, however, the maintenance of a social status quo, and, most importantly, the governing force.

Governments who use their military for governing force usually have no lack of volunteers willing to share in the spoils from subjugating the masses, and military service is often a fast track to wealth in those nations.

There are no exceptions now or ever - conscription is a tool for mass and forced labour for unpopular activity. This applies to Taiwan, Israel, the World Wars, Vietnam War, defence, public work, and any other - anyone wishing to disagree on these points will likely need, as justifications, the many and frequent assertions made in various media - this is example of social engineering by the governing force in order to justify and manipulate the wider society.

The same could be said for education. Most modern nations force their citizens to participate in schooling because literacy benefits their society as a whole.

The utilisation of conscription, also being a method of forced labour, is distinctly undemocratic and immoral - in a truelly democratic nation, such a force is completely unecessary for any of the overt reasons for conscription.

Anyone disagreeing should consider how happy they would be if I were to come over to their house, tell them they're working for me, no matter what excuse, and I'll pay them whatever I feel is appropriate. If you don't like it, I will either beat you, put you in a cage, or inflict such social abuse as to make said abuse no different to the other two options.

No one will honestly say that is ok.

You could apply that to education also. Governments often punish parents who do not submit their children to some public or private schooling institution and even require that citizens pay for the privilege, and illiterates are often looked down upon by other members of society. Certainly such practices must be considered undemocratic whether they serve to protect a nations future or not.

 

[10Seven]

Governments who use their military for governing force usually have no lack of volunteers willing to share in the spoils from subjugating the masses, and military service is often a fast track to wealth in those nations.

Well, my example includes the USA - whose military has been used frequently for internal pacification. I say USA, noting your location - I would include many others too.

The same could be said for education. Most modern nations force their citizens to participate in schooling because literacy benefits their society as a whole.

The issue quite different - education is an avenue for personal empowerment - where restricted education is often a vital aspect of control over a less educated population.

Military service is defined by the destruction of individuality - even in special forces units - and harnessing of the individual as an automatom - 'I was just following orders'.

The fact that this method of control is wholly unecessary to the creation of effective units only highlights the overwhelming purpose of a military force.

Governments often punish parents who do not submit their children to some public or private schooling institution and even require that citizens pay for the privilege, and illiterates are often looked down upon by other members of society. Certainly such practices must be considered undemocratic whether they serve to protect a nations future or not.

Are you shocked that parent's should pay for their children's education?

Are you shocked that a child's education should be protected - and parent's who abuse their children through restricting education should face censure?

TO REITERATE
My argument boils down to this:

1. Conscription is entirely inecessary to the defence of a nation, and any other use a conscript is put to.

2. It is undemocratic and immoral - first for obvious reasons, and second, for it's inherant abuse of human rights, and as it is a method of control.


So, my answer to the question would be:

1. I'll 'serve' if I think the activity is good/just/similar word, and if I'm not mistreated while in that service.

2. And if I do not think it is good/just/similar word, then they're just out of luck. Similarly if I feel mistreated.

Quite how any reasonable person could have a problem with that is beyond me - except where a person feels I should serve their desire beyond their own right to project.

 

[EzInKy]

Well, my example includes the USA - whose military has been used frequently for internal pacification. I say USA, noting your location - I would include many others too.

It has? Name the last time the US has used it's armed forces to internally pacify? We have people here who don't even want it used for border patrol.

The issue quite different - education is an avenue for personal empowerment - where restricted education is often a vital aspect of control over a less educated population.

Military service is defined by the destruction of individuality - even in special forces units - and harnessing of the individual as an automatom - 'I was just following orders'.

You may define military service as such, I don't. Just following orders is never an excuse for illegal conduct. You just look at the witch hunt going on right now due to the prison abuse scandal for evidence of that.

The fact that this method of control is wholly unecessary to the creation of effective units only highlights the overwhelming purpose of a military force.

You are right is not necessary, that is why our troops aren't trained to be automatons.

Are you shocked that parent's should pay for their children's education?

Are you shocked that a child's education should be protected - and parent's who abuse their children through restricting education should face censure?

No, I'm not shocked. Conscription is no more slavery than forced education is. The purpose of both is for the benefit of society. As a matter of fact I lean towards making military or peace corps service mandatory for graduation. We seem to learn well how to take but many of us miss learning how to give.

TO REITERATE
My argument boils down to this:

1. Conscription is entirely inecessary to the defence of a nation, and any other use a conscript is put to.

It is absolutely necessary when a nation is faced with a foe whose forces outnumber its own.

2. It is undemocratic and immoral - first for obvious reasons, and second, for it's inherant abuse of human rights, and as it is a method of control.

Nothing is undemocratic if it applies to everybody. It is immoral not to defend your neighbors when they are attacked. And as far as a method of control it is absolutely illegal to deploy US forces against civillians. See the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

[RegentMan]

I would never volunteerly sign up for the armed forces but if I were to be drafted, I wouldn't mind dying for my country.