Your thoughts regarding mandatory 2 years of service to the nation (military or civilian--both women and men)?
12 Answers to "Your thoughts regarding mandatory 2 years of service to the nation (military or civilian--both women and men)?"
-
I think it is a great idea and gets citizen's actively involved in the nation and teaches that citizenship has responsibilities too instead of people expecting privileges for nothing. Also from a defense standpoint it makes more sense for my home country of Canada and probably would be implemented if we ever got a leader who believed the Canadian military should be about defending our country and not about being an auxiliary of the US military. Plus military training would teach citizens to work together as a team so in times of crisis like floods or earthquakes the people could take care of their own communities in a proactive manner instead of having to wait for the military to come rescue them.
Like (2)
-
aargh!
i would emigrate
and i chose to serve in the military
the main argument against is that it messes up the forces
a professional army is better trained and motivated than a bunch of civilians- eg falklands
also, i do not want a load of semi-trained loonies joining gangs and using half-learnt skills in societyLike (2)
-
I served 8 years in the Army, 1st Gulf vet..........If not YOU then who?
Bad guys thrive when they know there's no one guarding the front door........Besides, harsh language don't work....You can do two years standing on your head...besieds, you'' be surpised what you can learn without a remote in your handLike (2)
-
National Service-Excellent idea,instill a bit of discipline,give people a bit of investment in their country and a bit of pride in their contribution..
Like (2)
-
I think it's good for countries to have mandatory service. You may never know if your country needs to invoke a draft to protect its borders, and having trained citizens if a major plus. Not to mention military service builds strength of character and pride in ones country. Too bad it's not fiscally possible in a country as big as my U.S.
Like (2)
-
Excellent points, Seabass...
Like (1)
-
Germany just got rid of mandatory service. Now, the US is trying to establish it? What the ****?
Like (2)
-
The US is not trying to establish it. I was just asking. Actually, military officers (especially higher ranks) like the all-volunteer force because they get soldiers who are much more likely to follow orders (even stupid and bad ones)--as opposed to draftees who would be quicker to point out the stupidity of certain operations/plans.
Like (1)
-
-
Why get paid for serving your country when you can get paid to sit on the couch and click the remote ? Because it's called " giving back " to a country that has given us so much. It was John F. Kennedy who said,"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." That was long before the country turned into the "government should take care of me" attitude of today.
Like (1)
-
Slavery is wrong.
Like (1)
-
I would favor some sort of mandatory national service but with a choice so the military would remain voluntary.
Like (1)
-
Perhaps with higher pay for the military option (hazardous duty pay/incentive)
Like (1)
-
Maybe one year instead of two. But this time there are NO DEFERMENTS as with the military draft.
Like (1)
-
Exactly. If Biden's son can go (which he did), then so can the Romney boys....
Like (1)
-
-
It would certainly make the unemployment figures decrease.
Like (1)
Best Answer (Chosen by Voting):
Posted by SoftCoreBoy Aug 23rd, 2012 at 8:59AM
That is called slave soldiers.
[ Reply ] | Like (3)