military service - Page 2 - 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
14
33%
2 yes, youth is to soft nowadays and this would harden them.(could aslo count in the long run for better parenting)
11
26%
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
5%
6 no, bad for economy, waste of money
1
2%
7 no, shouldn'be country wise, butunion wise( EU,arabic union, etc)
No votes
0%
8 yes, but for other reason( please exolain)
1
2%
9 no, but for other reason( please explain)
6
14%
10 Other
8
19%
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006868
Political_Observer wrote: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.
That response is terrible both in it's apparent arrogance and justification for horrible crimes in the name of justice/revenge. You killed 3,000 so we're OK killing 500,000.

Political_Observer wrote: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 don't think like that, however and I am sure the Saudi Arabians didn't care, either, when it prompted an attack on Afghanistan/Iraq. You do know the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi, right? They wanted the US to over-react.

9/11 succeeded greatly, not only in the attack, but in the American system of freedoms that the US eroded in response to it. Air travel is as safe as it always was, but people's perception of it, isn't. In response to 9/11 they took away some American freedoms in exchange for the false perception of "security".

The world understands military strength, and it's severe limitations, in responding to some kind of attacks.

Note: Do not misunderstand me. I no way condone 9/11. It was horrible, and it was tragic. It was not, however, unprovoked.

American influence and meddling in the Middle East more than justified(at least in their minds) such a response(9/11). They also took advantage of a misguided policy in place from the 80's where the pilots and crews of planes were to follow the demands of hijackers.
#15006889
@Godstud

You're entitled to your opinion. I was exaggerating a bit too. Bin Laden designed Afghanistan to be a trap. Which it very much was and was no fun having to serve in that environment. His goal was to draw us into a trap with a terrorist attack and protract out the conflict and get us to spend a bunch of money. Which he did, and he ultimately paid with his life too along with many others. Nobody wins in a war.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15009559
I voted #9.

I'm retired Navy; decorated combat Vet and Gulf War Vet. I was fortunate enough to serve after the draft. I say "fortunate enough" because, as a senior enlisted guy, I ran a division of about 30 people. The last thing I would want would be someone in my division who didn't want to be there.

The military's not for everyone, so we shouldn't pretend that it is...
#15056949
Sorry about the slight necropost - I've been busy running PoFoUK and don't have time to visit all that often!

Big Steve wrote:The last thing I would want would be someone in my division who didn't want to be there.

The military's not for everyone, so we shouldn't pretend that it is...

QFT.

The problem we have in HM Armed Forces (I'm a Major in our Nursing Corps, btw) is that we have a very old fashioned approach to this issue. We talk about enlistment, for historical reasons, as 'taking the shilling', which is actually an ironic reference to the days of the press gang, but nevertheless since our conscription ended in the 1960s we have prided/deluded ourselves that those who 'take the shilling' do so entirely voluntarily. The problem with that is that as soon as someone has taken the aforementioned shilling they become a pressed man, due to our draconian regulations around release from military service.

Over a decade ago, we hosted the International Military Mental Health Conference (I was the Project Officer for the conference) and our 'theme' was 'The Unhappy Soldier'. Our international colleagues were somewhat perplexed, however, because they did not encounter this problem to the extent that we did - and do - because they had/have much more reasonable terms and conditions and, unlike us, don't force people to wait 12-18 months from giving Notice to Terminate before they can leave, during which time they are mocked, derided and bullied for not being able to 'hack it'. :hmm:

We don't so ourselves any favours, FFS. Aside from my day job, I'm also an academic specialising in veterans and transition and I earnestly believe that if we treated those who had accepted it was their time to leave with more grace and respect, we would increase our recruitment because those people would go out into civilian life with a 'good news' story about their military experience. Instead, we send them out with a story about how they were treated like shit - and then we wonder why we struggle to recruit? :knife:
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15056963
Cartertonian wrote:Sorry about the slight necropost - I've been busy running PoFoUK and don't have time to visit all that often!


QFT.

The problem we have in HM Armed Forces (I'm a Major in our Nursing Corps, btw) is that we have a very old fashioned approach to this issue. We talk about enlistment, for historical reasons, as 'taking the shilling', which is actually an ironic reference to the days of the press gang, but nevertheless since our conscription ended in the 1960s we have prided/deluded ourselves that those who 'take the shilling' do so entirely voluntarily. The problem with that is that as soon as someone has taken the aforementioned shilling they become a pressed man, due to our draconian regulations around release from military service.

Over a decade ago, we hosted the International Military Mental Health Conference (I was the Project Officer for the conference) and our 'theme' was 'The Unhappy Soldier'. Our international colleagues were somewhat perplexed, however, because they did not encounter this problem to the extent that we did - and do - because they had/have much more reasonable terms and conditions and, unlike us, don't force people to wait 12-18 months from giving Notice to Terminate before they can leave, during which time they are mocked, derided and bullied for not being able to 'hack it'. :hmm:

We don't so ourselves any favours, FFS. Aside from my day job, I'm also an academic specialising in veterans and transition and I earnestly believe that if we treated those who had accepted it was their time to leave with more grace and respect, we would increase our recruitment because those people would go out into civilian life with a 'good news' story about their military experience. Instead, we send them out with a story about how they were treated like shit - and then we wonder why we struggle to recruit? :knife:


As a person who went through conscription in my country, i think that you are thinking in the right direction. There were many people who disliked the service because they were forced in to it and some couldn't adapt well also. Basically even if people are physically capable then it is not everything to the military service in my opinion. Mental adaptability is i guess more important because physical stuff will be trained anyways.

As for me, i had some trouble in basic so i disliked that but otherwise it was fine in my opinion. (Does anyone even like basic?)
#15056969
Basic training is the sort of experience you reflect on fondly, but didn't enjoy at the time!

I'm a qualified phase 1 (basic) and phase 2/3 (specialist/special to arm) instructor and the aim of basic training is to 'break' you and then rebuild you as a soldier (or sailor or airman), so no matter how well prepared you are, they will find a way to break you! ;)

I have two of my kids joining up in 2020 (they've passed selection) and of course I will give them my best advice, but it will still be an ordeal for them.
By Rich
#15056975
Godstud wrote: Yet, the USA went on to kill almost a million people, in numerous countries, as revenge for 9/11.

That's quite simply a lie. When a Sunni Muslim Arab goes into a market place and blows up Shia women and children by the dozen, the Cultural Marxist blames America.
#15056994
It depends if the country faces a real threat. Another thing to bear in mind is that if other countries see you are militarily weaker or have no military, they might be tempted to try to invade your country, come in and take it over. That might not necessarily be the case. So, I guess it just depends on the circumstances of each individual country.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15057001
Having good allies, in this modern era, means you don't need to have a powerful military.
#15057002
@Godstud

I agree so long as those allies are strong and reliable plus have a good track record of remaining reliable and honoring their commitments.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15057131
Godstud wrote:That response is terrible both in it's apparent arrogance and justification for horrible crimes in the name of justice/revenge. You killed 3,000 so we're OK killing 500,000.


An overwhelmingly disproportional response is the only acceptable response...
By late
#15057136
BigSteve wrote:
An overwhelmingly disproportional response is the only acceptable response...



I guess any excuse will do if you want mass murder.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15057141
late wrote:I guess any excuse will do if you want mass murder.


If they don't want mass murder, they shouldn't have attacked us.

Proportional responses are stupid and senseless.

Thankfully, the opinions of pacifist, enemy sympathizers are easily dismissed...
By late
#15057146
BigSteve wrote:
If they don't want mass murder, they shouldn't have attacked us.

Proportional responses are stupid and senseless.

Thankfully, the opinions of pacifist, enemy sympathizers are easily dismissed...



Iraq didn't attack us. That was PNAC wanting to pound some poor country into the dust.

If you want to pinpoint who attacked us, more than any other country, it was Saudi Arabia.

Not that I want, or wanted, to attack anyone. One of the great ironies here is that we knew of a bunch of upper echelon AQ in a chopper, this was during the conquest of Afghanistan and they were fleeing.

It would have been a piece of cake to them out.I would have no problem with that. But they chickened out. Can you figure out why? I'll have you a hint, it's ironic if a bit sickening.

So we didn't do what we set out to do, and wound up stuck in another pointless conflict.

In total, Iraq and Afghanistan will cost us something over 4 trillion, maybe 5, in total.

Do you have any idea how many schools, bridges, improvements to the power grids, and a hundred other things as well that we could have gotten with that money? Pretty much everything we need.

Now, about military strategy. You need to accomplish your goals, whatever they were. What were our goals? I'm still waiting for someone to explain that.

We didn't have clearly established operational goals. It's a perfect way to guarantee failure.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15057152
I agree with both @BigSteve and @Cartertonian .

All volunteer for me. I served both in times of conscription and of an all volunteer force. The later is much more professional. There is a great deal of value from the first day in a soldier understanding that he/she is part of a professional force.


Over a decade ago, we hosted the International Military Mental Health Conference (I was the Project Officer for the conference) and our 'theme' was 'The Unhappy Soldier'. Our international colleagues were somewhat perplexed, however, because they did not encounter this problem to the extent that we did - and do - because they had/have much more reasonable terms and conditions and, unlike us, don't force people to wait 12-18 months from giving Notice to Terminate before they can leave, during which time they are mocked, derided and bullied for not being able to 'hack it'. :hmm:


I think we did this part pretty well in the US in the past. We had a set enlistment period and expected the service person to leave after that. Indeed since we still have a draft law on the books, and since we have an up-or-out promotion system we did not unduly pressure anyone to stay. That said. I was in a very high profile job when I decided to retire. It was very inconvenient for some that I did and I got a great deal of pressure to stay. Which I resisted. Somewhat gleefully not to put to fine a point on it. Now we are erring by adapting a system similar to that of the UK and creating a similar problem. Back when we had a 20 year, 50% retirement as I received, the decision to retire was much easier also. There is yet another new system now which seems to be even better.

I seem to recall Carter that you got some pressure to stay when you left the service before.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15057155
Godstud wrote:Having good allies, in this modern era, means you don't need to have a powerful military.


Provided your allies have powerful militaries...
User avatar
By Godstud
#15057162
:roll: A bunch of average militaries = a powerful military.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15057164
Godstud wrote::roll: A bunch of average militaries = a powerful military.


That's a statement which is made by someone who has no idea what it's like to serve in a powerful military...
User avatar
By Godstud
#15057166
BigSteve wrote:That's a statement which is made by someone who has no idea what it's like to serve in a powerful military...
:lol: And your comment is typical of an arrogant American who thinks that everything is solved by violence and flexing muscles. Just dumb.

A coalition of nations is more powerful than a single one. The Commonwealth of nations could field a larger and just as advanced military as the USA, for example. Many people have found that fighting on numerous fronts, against multiple enemies, is foolhardy.

Of course, that isn't what this thread is about.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15057167
Godstud wrote::lol: And your comment is typical of an arrogant American who thinks that everything is solved by violence and flexing muscles. Just dumb.


Not at all.

But when diplomacy doesn't work, it's nice to have those muscles to flex.

Inferior militaries can't do that. If you have a dozen inferior military forces and combine them, you don't have one superior force. You have a group of 12 inferior fighting forces...

A coalition of nations is more powerful than a single one. The Commonwealth of nations could field a larger and just as advanced military as the USA, for example.


Larger? Debatable.

More advanced?

Yeah, probably not.

Well, unless Tuvalu gets really pissed. Then I guess we're in for some trouble...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Alright, so what's the latest on Epstein? He was[…]

I'm no longer a socialist

Report documents criminality and corruption at hea[…]

desgraciado Ñoooooooo tremendo business. :lol:[…]

Having a literal fascist regime as the #1 superp[…]