military service - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

should countries have military service and why

1: yes, every country should be able to defend itself
6
25%
2 yes, youth is to soft nowadays and this would harden them.(could aslo count in the long run for better parenting)
7
29%
3 yes, it would improve the economy
No votes
0%
4 no, any way of violence is bad
No votes
0%
5 no, dangerous to give this knowledge to the 'simple' man, they might use it badly in public( eg with rise of extremism)
2
8%
6 no, bad for economy, waste of money
No votes
0%
7 no, shouldn'be country wise, butunion wise( EU,arabic union, etc)
No votes
0%
8 yes, but for other reason( please exolain)
1
4%
9 no, but for other reason( please explain)
3
13%
10 Other
5
21%
By peaclock
#14998427
hello, what do yoi guys think about military service when you reach 18 years old, pick a number and explain yourself.
if yes also tell me if peoope should do some months of service for x amount of years or just do 1 longer service term.
please tell me from what country or continent you are, would give a better idea of your point of view.
( this is my first poll, i hope it is possible to comment on it)
User avatar
By SolarCross
#14998430
Are you talking about mandatory military service, ie: conscription? Because there is a such a thing as voluntary reservists aside from the professional military but that is by choice.
User avatar
By Ter
#14998431
It doesn't hurt to instill a bit of discipline in the young men.

Also:
According to the Laws and by-Laws and the Constitution of PoFo, every poll needs to have an option "other"
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#14998556
Ter wrote:According to the Laws and by-Laws and the Constitution of PoFo, every poll needs to have an option "other"


As if by magic....

;)

And assuming we're talking about conscription, I voted 9

All-volunteer, professional Armed Forces will always be preferable to conscripts.
By smoke40
#14998563
even though im somewhat of a pacifist, i dont think military service is a bad thing in itself. however, at least in my country it's handled very poorly. my brother had a back problem in mil service, and his doctor told him to rest and not do anything physical. well they put him to dig a ditch, which caused him permanent back problems and a temporal paralyzation iirc.
personally, i'm not going to military, instead i will do civil service.
By peaclock
#14998645
SolarCross wrote:Are you talking about mandatory military service, ie: conscription? Because there is a such a thing as voluntary reservists aside from the professional military but that is by choice.


yes, mandatory
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14998646


South Korea requires its male Korean citizens between the ages of 18 and 28 to perform the compulsory military service for a period of 20-23 months. Only those who fail the physical requirements are exempt from military service. There are almost no exceptions, not even on religious grounds. It's really tragic to be born in Korea on the both sides of the 38th parallel.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14998652
Other.(No, sort of)

No. Military service should not be mandatory. You really only want people who are serving voluntarily in your military, anyhow, as they'll be far better soldiers than conscripts.

Note: I served voluntarily in the military, when I was 18.
By Sivad
#14998658
The federal military should be abolished and replaced with publicly funded voluntary cooperative democratic militias. No terms of service, people are free to withdraw at any time, the state can't force any militia unit to fight, the militia itself votes on whether to go to war and when to cease hostilities.
#14998755
Sivad wrote:The federal military should be abolished and replaced with publicly funded voluntary cooperative democratic militias. No terms of service, people are free to withdraw at any time, the state can't force any militia unit to fight, the militia itself votes on whether to go to war and when to cease hostilities.


This is the closest remark on here as to my own position; which is not surprising as we have considerable ideological overlap.

However, I would probably state my position as a fundamental opposition to any third party having a monopoly on coercion; I like the idea of voluntary militias (your idea) as a sort of "mercenary guild," but I would prefer it to be funded by donations and private funds, NOT coercive and mandatory collected public funds (taxes). This revision of your position being necessary to make it "fully" voluntary.

Further, I think any person on their own private property has the right to take up defensive arms, hire arms, or contract arms for the defense thereof. I think this a logically inferrable natural right.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#14998802
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is the closest remark on here as to my own position; which is not surprising as we have considerable ideological overlap.

However, I would probably state my position as a fundamental opposition to any third party having a monopoly on coercion; I like the idea of voluntary militias (your idea) as a sort of "mercenary guild," but I would prefer it to be funded by donations and private funds, NOT coercive and mandatory collected public funds (taxes). This revision of your position being necessary to make it "fully" voluntary.

Further, I think any person on their own private property has the right to take up defensive arms, hire arms, or contract arms for the defense thereof. I think this a logically inferrable natural right.


I recall from Russian history, during the Time of Troubles, that the Swedes and the Poles were driven out entirely by a People's Militia raised by the Butcher Minin and the Noble Pozharsky, privately funded and supplied by the people themselves responding to the call. Of course from the beginning the military there was raised from the private estates of the nobility and the Tsar anyway.
By peaclock
#14998945
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is the closest remark on here as to my own position; which is not surprising as we have considerable ideological overlap.

However, I would probably state my position as a fundamental opposition to any third party having a monopoly on coercion; I like the idea of voluntary militias (your idea) as a sort of "mercenary guild," but I would prefer it to be funded by donations and private funds, NOT coercive and mandatory collected public funds (taxes). This revision of your position being necessary to make it "fully" voluntary.

Further, I think any person on their own private property has the right to take up defensive arms, hire arms, or contract arms for the defense thereof. I think this a logically inferrable natural right.


militias is a dangerous thing, since noboby controls them, and so depending on their agenda they might do wrong, you can find militias in poland, and some of them go fight in ukraine. its not that they do bad, but they look more like war obsessed people who are looking for a kick.( of course you can understand the polish people because of their history)where as military run by a country can be controlled better

and about being able to defend your property, as long as you dont injury the offemder more than neccesary i'm fine with it. but in practice that will rarely be the case
#15006835
@ThirdTerm

ThirdTerm wrote:South Korea requires its male Korean citizens between the ages of 18 and 28 to perform the compulsory military service for a period of 20-23 months. Only those who fail the physical requirements are exempt from military service. There are almost no exceptions, not even on religious grounds. It's really tragic to be born in Korea on the both sides of the 38th parallel.


That's just life sometimes. Look on the bright side, at least there are a few developed democracies in the world left where the burdens of national defense are more evenly distributed. Personally, I think here in the United States we should have national service for 3 years where every 18 year old gets to choose between doing 3 years of service in the Army or 3 years of some type of civilian national service or in the Peace Corps.

It'll teach kids and American citizens that their are other people besides themselves and that some things are bigger and more important than their own narrow selfish interests. But I think national service should be required of the most wealthy family NO MATTER WHAT. No excuses and NO BUYING YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006839
The problem with that, @Politics_Observer, is that you're sort of talking about a Capitalist country, where buying your way out of things, is the norm.

It even happens in other countries. Thailand, for instance, has a draft. When you get to 21 years old, you have to enlist or draw from bag that holds 100 stones. 58 are black and 42 are white. A black stone drawn, means your going to have to serve. People can, however, after the basic training, buy their way out of service.

The guy at my gym has a relatively well-to-do family, so he'll likely only serve a couple months out of a couple year term.
#15006841
@Godstud

Ohhh I KNOW! That's why the burdens of national defense, especially during war time where the ones who are actually doing the fighting and dying, are the poor and disenfranchised. Then if you are lucky enough to survive, you get to listen to the rich bitch about paying veterans benefits when they have never had to serve or see any combat or have to bury a loved one. And the barracuda eats the fish!
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 23 May 2019 03:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006844
Unless you get rid of the class system, this will forever be a problem.

Better yet, have a purely volunteer military, like those that already exist. There are always those who are brave/stupid enough to join up and fight for whoever their master is.

Note: I served in the Canadian military as a young man, so I can say that. :D I do not think I would, now.
#15006846
@Godstud

I'm not going to take that away from you. I personally volunteered because of the massive terrorist attack on 9/11. I normally wouldn't volunteer for war but I thought long and hard about it and thought in this case, the cause was right and just. I was just thinking about the 3,000 Americans who were killed senselessly by a band of crazed, hate filled, religious, wackjob, batshit crazy fanatics and decided the country needed me. I didn't feel right just turning my back on the victims of 9/11 after such a crazy attack, so I volunteered.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 23 May 2019 05:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006853
Just to clarify. When I served, there was no war that Canada was involved with(late 80s). I'd never volunteer to serve in the military if my country was on a war footing, unless the enemy was actually a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

Political_Observor wrote:I was just thinking about the 3,000 Americans who were killed senselessly by a band of crazed hate filled religious wackjob fanatics and decided the country needed me.
Yet, the USA went on to kill almost a million people, in numerous countries, as revenge for 9/11. What's can possibly be more whackjob than that?

Political_Observor wrote:I didn't feel right just turning my back on the victims of 9/11 after such a crazy attack, so I volunteered.
I don't doubt that it felt like the right thing to do.
#15006860
@Godstud

Godstud wrote:Yet, the USA went on to kill almost a million people, in numerous countries, as revenge for 9/11. What's can possibly be more whackjob than that?


The Taliban and Al-queda should have thought about that before launching a terrorist attack on the US. See, if they just left us alone, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED! Two wrongs don't make a right but it makes us even. Well, I guess in this case, more than even after our response. People are less likely to mess with you when they know their is a big price to pay for doing so. You have to demonstrate to the rest of world what happens when you mess with the US when the US is actually messed with.

When they see the response, they are going to think "You know, we better not launch an attack or first strike on the US. They will be able to do something back and it just wouldn't be worth the cost we would pay. And we can see, they got their man Bin-Laden too, so even if we are stateless, we know they will eventually find us if we did something stupid." See how that works? The world understands strength and might and respects that. It's just the way the world works sometimes (not saying it's necessarily ALWAYS the case but in many cases, it is).
The Next UK PM everybody...

Had Symonds made an accusation against him, it wou[…]

I am not interested in your semantics debate abou[…]

The extradition bill was necessary , in order to […]

1. The USA is not a real country in the historic […]