If Army service was mandatory would you be pleased?

Neal_B

Just curious. If Ireland adopted a law whereby all men had to do a mandatory 2 yrs in the army like some other countries what would you make of it?
I know we're neutral and all, but this is all hypothetical of course

CDfm

No - but I think it should be ladies first.

They are smaller than us men and less likely to get hit by bullets.

L31mr0d

I'd be against it.

Sure, it seems like a great idea to have everybody trained so that the whole country could quickly mobilize if someone tried to invade us or declare war on us. But I think the problem with conscription is that it dehumanizes the individual. It only sees a people as a whole, as cogs working for the state.

Conscription, I believe, is a bad thing. It breeds a jingoistic nature into the individual. It also assumes that it is the duty of the citizens to want to protect the state. My nationalism for this country extends as far as the land I stand on and the possessions I own. I certainly would not endanger my own life to protect it. Assuming the current state will always be better than an invading one is also naive.

Red Hand

I think National Service, be it in the army or the alternative (like having to work in old folks homes etc, or some sort of social service) is a great idea. Countries like Finland, Germany and Switzerland have these set-ups, and it is an opportunity for young people to learn new skills like for example learning to become a medic in the army. People who are disconnected or marginalised from society, be it through poverty, the area they live in or unemployment, have a chance to better themselves using such National Service.

Red Hand

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'd be against it.

Sure, it seems like a great idea to have everybody trained so that the whole country could quickly mobilize if someone tried to invade us or declare war on us. But I think the problem with conscription is that it dehumanizes the individual. It only sees a people as a whole, as cogs working for the state.

Conscription, I believe, is a bad thing. It breeds a jingoistic nature into the individual. It also assumes that it is the duty of the citizens to want to protect the state. My nationalism for this country extends as far as the land I stand on and the possessions I own. I certainly would not endanger my own life to protect it. Assuming the current state will always be better than an invading one is also naive.

Well, you can opt out of army service if you want to in many countries, and perform your national service by doing some sort of volunteer work like in a retirement home or youth volunteering.

Serving the state rather than protecting seems to be the idea behind it.

Tabnabs

I think it's an excellent idea. I have quite a few relations who benefited from there time in the military (12 months conscription). Least of all was the equipment they got to train with/on.

People may also value their country, national identity and citizenship a good deal more if they had to put something back into it.

And having been to Israel, Irish women should most definitely be conscripted too :eek:

L31mr0d

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Serving the state rather than protecting seems to be the idea behind it.

A friend I have who is a citizen in a country that has mandatory conscription decided to opt out of military training so was only given the alternative of working in a morgue instead. He now has some nice memories of taking elevator journeys alone with dead small children and seeing more mutilated bodies than I'd expect most will see ever.

He was forced to work a job he would never of chosen in a lifetime because the option to simply not perform national service wasn't allowed.

It is a removal of a freedom and assumes the individual owes the state their service. Taxes I can stomach, my limited time I have to live I cannot.

Neal_B

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'd be against it.

Sure, it seems like a great idea to have everybody trained so that the whole country could quickly mobilize if someone tried to invade us or declare war on us. But I think the problem with conscription is that it dehumanizes the individual. It only sees a people as a whole, as cogs working for the state.

Conscription, I believe, is a bad thing. It breeds a jingoistic nature into the individual. It also assumes that it is the duty of the citizens to want to protect the state. My nationalism for this country extends as far as the land I stand on and the possessions I own. I certainly would not endanger my own life to protect it. Assuming the current state will always be better than an invading one is also naive.

I'd agree with you there, Jeremiah makes a very good point too. If it were national service as opposed to national defense it would be better

whatawaster

They could f*ck off. I'd be on the first plane out of here

Mena

Definately a good idea. I did three years military training (year 1 being compulsory), best three years of my life.

Would put some manners on the young ones of today too!

Red Hand

L31mr0d wrote: »

A friend I have who is a citizen in a country that has mandatory conscription decided to opt out of military training so was only given the alternative of working in a morgue instead. He now has some nice memories of taking elevator journeys alone with dead small children and seeing more mutilated bodies than I'd expect most will see ever.

He was forced to work a job he would never of chosen in a lifetime because the option to simply not perform national service wasn't allowed.

I would have loved that! Seriously...maybe I'm morbid, though.:pac: The army as well, that would be cool.

It is a removal of a freedom and assumes the individual owes the state their service. Taxes I can stomach, my limited time I have to live I cannot.

I see your point, but what about young people who have already recieved money from the state in terms of child benefit/school/college grants when they were growing up, or whose only outlet after leaving school (either early or due to the lack of jobs) is the dole queue?

At least your friend working in the morgue was doing something useful?

minidazzler

I would not be pleased, because I would be a forced exemption in this country, and most countries, though it is my dream career I am too blind!

seamus

Military training does not make scumbags into nice people. It just makes them into well-trained scumbags.

I fail to see any benefit whatsoever to the Irish taxpayer in forcing military service.

L31mr0d

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

At least your friend working in the morgue was doing something useful?

That's scarred him for life an action is only of use to the individual if it brings them happiness. A forced action that is useful to the state, but not concerned with the happiness of the individual, and that is not a punishment for crimes is a form of slavery. There is a reason conscription isn't even an option in the United States. To institute it would require violating numerous articles from their Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Seriously, this is the problem. You only see utility to the whole. You need to account for utility purely on an individual basis.

Conscription is nothing but a vehicle to spread bigoted nationalism and militarism, it can be abused by corrupt states to use as a platform for spreading their propaganda and societal subjugation. In countries that have it instituted it is known that males who received military training are more likely to resolve disputes with violence and are more likely to discriminate against males who have not served.

The progression towards a peaceful global human society has nothing to do with the propagating and increasing levels of militaristic training and mindsets.

But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Einstein and Gandhis Anti-Conscription Manifesto:

http://www.themanifesto.info/manifesto.htm

"The State which thinks itself entitled to force its citizens to go to war will never pay proper regard to the value and happiness of their lives in peace. Moreover, by conscription the militarist spirit of aggressiveness is implanted in the whole male population at the most impressionable age. By training for war men come to consider war as unavoidable and even desirable."

Whosbetter?

Of course it would be a great idea.

I did a stint in the FCA as a teenager. Great craic!

Only problem is that it might interfere with the plans of people doing important 3rd level courses like Nursing or Engineering.

I think they should be exempt tbh.

Loads of teens might get a wake up call from this such as wasters,career doleites, potential junkies & those aspiring to doing pointless college courses like 'media studies'.:rolleyes:

Red Hand

L31mr0d wrote: »

That's scarred him for life an action is only of use to the individual if it brings them happiness. A forced action that is useful to the state, but not concerned with the happiness of the individual, and that is not a punishment for crimes is a form of slavery.

Well, many if not most people work in jobs that bring them money and not because it brings them happiness. And the tax money is useful to the state.

So, what alternative would be appropriate if you wanted people to contribute something to society? Or is there an alternative? Taxes are enough?

I personally don't like the idea of countries-I think people should ideally be living in smallish tribes of around 200 as there is less likelihood of gross inequality. Some sort of national service is making the best of a bad situation.

L31mr0d

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Well, many if not most people work in jobs that bring them money and not because it brings them happiness. And the tax money is useful to the state.

The difference here is the individual is free to not work in this job. It is their choice to stay in a job purely for the money and forego their personal happiness. Yes you could argue in countries like India that people have no option but to work the jobs they are given to survive, but this is a whole other area dealing with Capitalism that has nothing to do with my issues with Militaristic Conscription.

I guarantee if you rephrase it as not "Military Training" but "Training in how to kill humans" you wouldn't find people so accepting of it. The military is great at rephrasing their actions to make them more palatable, in the US they say "dispatched" instead of "slaughtered" and "collateral damage" instead of "the murder of innocent humans"

The only instance where national service should be forced, and which has nothing to do with the military, is during rehabilitation for crimes against society. I do not believe in Jails. I believe that people who commit crimes should not be simply held in buildings with bars, but should be put to work to benefit society as a whole and rehabilitation of them should be attempted during their incarceration.

Ebbs

Personally, I would be for mandatory army service, no longer than 12 months though. Id love to see it incorperated into college system,unemployment of youths, and youth "punishment". Ill explain each to make myself clear.

To incorperate it into the college system, you could perhaps have to choose between a stint in the army or an increased fee for college. This may be a rather unpopular option but it may allow for a greater income to the state through using the army in certain situations or even through the fees gathered from those opting out.

Recently we seen a dramatic decrease in the dole level for those under 23, due to thinking that those under 23 can just mooch off parents :rolleyes:. If instead of this, we let the under 23 year olds join the military for a minium of 12 months and allow them to earn full dole while serving the state, and learning new skills. The 12 months military service could be incorpated into a learning base aswell, for example they do basic training but also specialise in a field, such as cooking et el. This would allow them to be a little more employable than before they entered. I guess this isnt really mandatory as I have said we "let", implying they have a choice, I am all for giving a choice though due to them not paying tax on incomes, making it purely mandatory to recieve the dole may be a good idea.

As for the latter of my points, "punishment" for youth offenders, as we have seen on boards there is often debates on the "slap on the hand" punishment system we have for youths these days has led ourselves into a rather bad situation. Instead of wasting our courts time, simply acting as a revolving door we could force military service with a focus on helping people. By helping people I mean aiding the public in a more direct approach, for all I care this could be picking up litter at the side of the roads or even building new roads.

Whosbetter?

Ebbs wrote: »

Personally, I would be for mandatory army service, no longer than 12 months though. Id love to see it incorperated into college system,unemployment of youths, and youth "punishment". Ill explain each to make myself clear.

To incorperate it into the college system, you could perhaps have to choose between a stint in the army or an increased fee for college. This may be a rather unpopular option but it may allow for a greater income to the state through using the army in certain situations or even through the fees gathered from those opting out.

Good point there.

bangersandmash

Dyflin wrote: »

And having been to Israel, Irish women should most definitely be conscripted too :eek:

Impressive how you manage to be offensive on so many different levels there. Besides I wouldn't hold Israel up as some kind of admirable standard in the military service argument.

whadabouchasir

How would training people to kill others be of any benefit to themselves or society?I don't think that everyone needs to do basic Military training and I especially don't want conscription for criminals or "young scumbags" the last thing I want them to get is a military training.The Army would agree with me on this seen as they do background checks on all applicants.I think that a state backed volunteering scheme for young people would be of much more benefit to both the individual and society in general.Although i don't think that it should be compulsory as then people would grow to resent it and it would become pointless/rant over.

krudler

Hell no, i dont even like it here

994

Whosbetter? wrote: »

Loads of teens might get a wake up call from this such as wasters,career doleites, potential junkies & those aspiring to doing pointless college courses like 'media studies'.:rolleyes:

So media studies - pointless
Two years of forced labour given to innocent young people so that they can learn to defend an island in NW Europe that's more likely to be obliterated by a meteorite than be invaded at any point in their lifetime - not pointless

Ebbs wrote:

To incorperate it into the college system, you could perhaps have to choose between a stint in the army or an increased fee for college. This may be a rather unpopular option but it may allow for a greater income to the state through using the army in certain situations or even through the fees gathered from those opting out.

That's not saving money at all as it's expensive to equip and keep soldiers. All it'll mean is that poor kids are told "join the Army or don't go to college" and so even fewer end up in university.

If thirteen years of education and eighteen years of being raised by one's parents, family and community haven't moulded someone into a good person, why would a few months of playing toy soldiers in the Wicklow Mountains?

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Well, you can opt out of army service if you want to in many countries, and perform your national service by doing some sort of volunteer work like in a retirement home or youth volunteering.

It's not volunteering if you're forced to do it.

Ebbs

994 wrote: »

That's not saving money at all as it's expensive to equip and keep soldiers. All it'll mean is that poor kids are told "join the Army or don't go to college" and so even fewer end up in university.

If thirteen years of education and eighteen years of being raised by one's parents, family and community haven't moulded someone into a good person, why would a few months of playing toy soldiers in the Wicklow Mountains?

I suppose upkeep would be a factor, however the majority of equipment would be already in place. Its not like the army dont need an upgrade already and the older equipment could easily be given to the new recruits.

Till a few months ago the poor kids were nearly left with the choice of taking out huge loans to go to college and by financially indebt for a long time...or they could go on the Dole. I dont know how long no fees will last, doubt it will last forever, up until just after the next election potentially.

Given the choice between the Dole, being indebt due to college loans, or having a one year stay in the army, I know I would have chosen the latter. Perhaps I will still have to make that choice to continue college or even for a postgrad degree. Which would you rather, a 24,000 euro fee for college or a 12month stay in the army? Keep in mind, even with all your food, accomadation, travel, books, medical, etc paid for, do you really think you would earn that 24,000 euro at the age of 17/18/19 in 12 months? Now I know it wouldnt have to be paid in full, so you may earn it working through college (which i doubt) but you would not be able to pay for anything else.

You are making the assumption that the person stayed in school for 13 years, that they indeed have a family to raise them properly, and that they lived in a community with the values of modern society. I feel that they assumptions dont really represent everyone. Personally, I would only have met the 13 years of schooling. Now I know the army does not transform an person and make them a nice little choir boy...but I would rather see them in the army rather than on the dole hanging around the streets. A stay in the army may help them learn work values that they cant learn elsewhere due to the global recession.

deadhead13

The size of Ireland's armed forces is around 10,000. Over 55,000 sat the leaving last year. Assuming half are male, although I don't see why females should be exempt, that would mean around 27,500 recruits that would have to be paid, fed, equiped, accommodation built and kept occupied every year. The cost would be enormous, but to what end?

Boston

Considering the problems we're having funding the current reserve, it doesn't seem practical.

Daftendirekt

No, I definitely would not be pleased..

People aren't slaves of the state, and don't owe any sort of involuntary 'national service' to it.

I'm sure a spell in the military is an educational and enjoyable experience for some people, but that doesn't justify depriving people of their freedom to choose whether or not they want to participate.

TheCandystripes

sweden has it? and sweden is better than ireland in all ways so ye good for ireland

mikom

TheCandystripes wrote: »

sweden has it? and sweden is better than ireland in all ways so ye good for ireland

All ways?
I'd say we'd give them a good game of 5-a-side self loathing.

Emme

If both boys and girls had to do mandatory service for a year or two after they left school it could be good. It would instil self-discipline in people (something badly needed here) and break down class barriers - people in Ireland tend to stick to their cliques very much.

Those whose lives are focused on academic achievement might learn that there is life outside the pale and there are more important things than getting seven A+ grades in the Leaving, and those who come from a background where most of the family are unemployed might grow in self-confidence and find a purpose in life.

Girls and boys working and training together would help break down the barriers that currently hamper communication between the genders in Ireland.

I think it would benefit everyone.

enda1

Emme wrote: »

If both boys and girls had to do mandatory service for a year or two after they left school it could be good. It would instil self-discipline in people (something badly needed here) and break down class barriers - people in Ireland tend to stick to their cliques very much.

Those whose lives are focused on academic achievement might learn that there is life outside the pale and there are more important things than getting seven A+ grades in the Leaving, and those who come from a background where most of the family are unemployed might grow in self-confidence and find a purpose in life.

Girls and boys working and training together would help break down the barriers that currently hamper communication between the genders in Ireland.

I think it would benefit everyone.

Let's start with mixed schools shall we, before enacting compulsory dole!

plissken

TheCandystripes wrote: »

sweden has it? and sweden is better than ireland in all ways so ye good for ireland

So why not move there?

P.C.

Nothing wrong with conscription.

It does not turn scumbags into trained killing machines.
It teaches them dicipline, manners and respect (for themselves and others).

In fact, it teaches these things to all young men (and women).

Military training is not about treating an individual as a slave.
It is about teaching somone new and transferable skills, which they might otherwise never learn.

Agent Smith

I have no problem whatsoever with it.

deadhead13

If I was of an age where this would be relevant to me, I would he have absolutely no interest whatsoever in wasting a year playing toy soldiers. If I had wanted to be a soldier I would have joined up.

Heckler

L31mr0d wrote: »

The difference here is the individual is free to not work in this job. It is their choice to stay in a job purely for the money and forego their personal happiness. Yes you could argue in countries like India that people have no option but to work the jobs they are given to survive, but this is a whole other area dealing with Capitalism that has nothing to do with my issues with Militaristic Conscription.

I guarantee if you rephrase it as not "Military Training" but "Training in how to kill humans" you wouldn't find people so accepting of it. The military is great at rephrasing their actions to make them more palatable, in the US they say "dispatched" instead of "slaughtered" and "collateral damage" instead of "the murder of innocent humans"

The only instance where national service should be forced, and which has nothing to do with the military, is during rehabilitation for crimes against society. I do not believe in Jails. I believe that people who commit crimes should not be simply held in buildings with bars, but should be put to work to benefit society as a whole and rehabilitation of them should be attempted during their incarceration.

Not everything in the army is about "Training in how to kill humans". What about army medics, engineers, mechanics, pilots etc....What about all those past and present members of the defence forces who do great peacekeeping work abroad. What about DF people who guard the transport of large monies about the country ? What about members of the Army Ranger Wing who helped in the release of innocent hostages abroad ? Whats wrong with having a bit of respect for those who chose to serve their country. As for your "I do not believe in jails". Get a grip. How exactly would you put a child rapist "to work" to benefit society ? Job in the boy scouts ?

Sure it would be a great society if we all ran around with flowers in our hair singing cat stevens songs. Doesn't work that way.

Sure, most militarily large countries don't get everything right most notably the U.S. but your casual dismissal of personnel as being only trained to kill "humans" is grossly narrowminded and indicitive to me at least as someone who just won't listen to debate.

Lands Leaving

Heckler wrote: »

Sure it would be a great society if we all ran around with flowers in our hair singing cat stevens songs. Doesn't work that way.

Cat Stevens... that'd be bloody awful!

Seems like most of the people agreeing with conscription have enjpyed their time in some sort of army service type setting. But that doesn't mean it's for everyone, and just because you had fun doesn't mean it's not other peoples idea of a nightmare. It's mine anyway. You wanna play soldier, go paintballing.

Not gonna bother getting into the morals of it all because no one ever agrees on anything anyway... Sure isn't that why countries have conscription in the first place.

SLUSK

I have done military service in Sweden. I can't think of anything that sucked more ass in my life.

CDfm

I was just browsing the History forum and Northern Ireland is the Topic.

In 1969, the Irish Republics force of 2,500 -3,000 soldiers was available to "invade Northern Ireland" . Anyway, back then NI was able to mobilise 8,000 B Specials to counter the threat.

Thats only 40 years ago and the Swedes developed their policy after being invaded by the Germans, under threat by the Russians and with a history going back toa not so happy co-existence with their Polish and Danish neighbours.

So in those terms on pure terms , Ireland does not have a military capability or reserves of any description.

sold

Neal_B wrote: »

Just curious. If Ireland adopted a law whereby all men had to do a mandatory 2 yrs in the army like some other countries what would you make of it?
I know we're neutral and all, but this is all hypothetical of course

A lot of my friends from College (from Italy, Germany & Poland) did military service, they said it was a great time. I think its a good, after all we are paying over 30,000 men from 18 to 23 to be on the dole when they could be in the army doing somthing constructive.

CDfm

Lands Leaving wrote: »

Cat Stevens... that'd be bloody awful!

+1000% agree -cat stevens - bloody awful .

I cant think of anything worse.

Well I just did - Ronan Keating duetting with him.

L31mr0d

Heckler wrote: »

Not everything in the army is about "Training in how to kill humans".

Heckler wrote: »

Sure it would be a great society if we all ran around with flowers in our hair singing cat stevens songs.

I like how you call me up on my superlative, yet then go on to say this :rolleyes:... pot, kettle... anyone?

It's a moot argument. It's like saying that "Not everything in a Car is for driving, there are the seats to sit on, the A/C, the CD player..." It still doesn't change the inherent purpose of owning a Car. The purpose of the army is to train people in how to effectively kill others. Afaik, all individuals that join the army, regardless of occupation, go under some form of basic training.

Listen, I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to undergo this type of training if they feel so inclined. I have problems with Smokers also, but I feel people should be free to smoke if they so wish. My argument is that nobody should be forced to support the Army, just as much as I believe nobody should be forced to smoke.

Heckler wrote: »

As for your "I do not believe in jails". Get a grip. How exactly would you put a child rapist "to work" to benefit society ? Job in the boy scouts ?

Wow... hyperbole :rolleyes: and emotionally charged as well. This idiotic style or argument I won't lower myself to entertain. Educate yourself in possible, and currently working, alternatives to simply holding a person in a caged cell for the term of their sentence, I'm not going to hold your hand.

Heckler wrote: »

your casual dismissal of personnel as being only trained to kill "humans" is grossly narrowminded and indicitive to me at least as someone who just won't listen to debate.

There is nothing casual about it, in fact I get the sense that your support for the army is verging on religious (I suppose it's appropriate, they both use the same techniques to indoctrinate). All the training skills you mentioned can be achieved without them having to be wrapped up in a military establishment.

My point also was more that this training should never be forced, regardless of how the individual feels it helped them afterwards. I know plenty of Adults that believe getting hit with a wooden spoon as a child "helped" them, it still doesn't make it right.

But like I said, don't just listen to me. Do some reading yourself as to the many reasons from Humanities greatest minds as to why a free society should always find Conscription disdainful.

seamus

sold wrote: »

A lot of my friends from College (from Italy, Germany & Poland) did military service, they said it was a great time. I think its a good, after all we are paying over 30,000 men from 18 to 23 to be on the dole when they could be in the army doing somthing constructive.

You mean sitting around and eating, and occassionally going onto a firing range to let off some steam?

Yes, we send peacekeeping troops overseas and they do a bloody good job, but training and mobilising 30,000 troops would cost us a hell of a lot more than 30,000 weekly dole payments.

enda1

seamus wrote: »

You mean sitting around and eating, and occassionally going onto a firing range to let off some steam?

Yes, we send peacekeeping troops overseas and they do a bloody good job, but training and mobilising 30,000 troops would cost us a hell of a lot more than 30,000 weekly dole payments.

Also isn't it about 50,000 people who sit the leaving cert each year?
So I guess its about 80,000 people who would be eligible each year, minus the unfit maybe 5%. It would cost a fortune!!

dlofnep

No. I'd rather spend my time on my education than learning how to maim some innocents across the way.

cocoa

sold wrote: »

A lot of my friends from College (from Italy, Germany & Poland) did military service, they said it was a great time. I think its a good, after all we are paying over 30,000 men from 18 to 23 to be on the dole when they could be in the army doing somthing destructive.

Fixed your post...

seamus

dlofnep wrote: »

No. I'd rather spend my time on my education than learning how to maim some innocents across the way.

Well actually that's a good point:

People say that the army gives more than just killing skills, which is true. So why the army at all? Why not develop a one-year course covering a lot of very useful life skills and ethics, and make it mandatory for all people in the September of their 18th year?

Why do they have to go into the armed forces if the intention isn't to turn them into soldiers?

Israel train all of their citizens - but for obvious reasons. Other countries have similar paranoid agendas which they use as justification for training all of their citizens for combat. What's our justification?

Boston

dlofnep wrote: »

No. I'd rather spend my time on my education than learning how to maim some innocents across the way.

Thats a disgraceful comment. The Irish armed forced serve as peace keepers, they save lives by protecting those who can't.Your insinuation is nonsense.

enda1

Boston wrote: »

Thats a disgraceful comment. The Irish armed forced serve as peace keepers, they save lives by protecting those who can't.Your insinuation is nonsense.

He never said they do, just that you learn how to.

Relax, its Christmas!

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

The Irish armed forced serve as peace keepers

I've always found the image of a person being called a peace keeper while they hold a gun that they've been trained to kill humans with quite ironic.

CDfm

Boston wrote: »

Thats a disgraceful comment. The Irish armed forced serve as peace keepers, they save lives by protecting those who can't.Your insinuation is nonsense.

But the key function of an army is to protect the sovereignty of the nation.

Could ours.

Why not conscript students who fail college