English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-04 13:48:09 · 34 answers · asked by Allasse 5 in Politics & Government Military

i'm British so talking about the British Army

2006-08-04 14:01:13 · update #1

OMG! america doesnt do national service so why are all u americans whinging on about asking bloody congress? Do you not know anything about your country? National Service was a British programme.

2006-08-04 14:04:20 · update #2

NIBBLER: confirmed now thankx

2006-08-04 14:46:16 · update #3

34 answers

being in the royal navy we often have this conversation and the general consensus is that there should be a 2 year national service in the UK but not just the military all Civil service should benefit such as fire service and police you should only have one way of getting out of this and that would be staying on in full time education

2006-08-06 00:13:00 · answer #1 · answered by johnstrangey 3 · 4 3

No, no, certainly not.

Baby boomers rule America now and until about 2020. Clinton was a boomer and so is "W." Do not, I say again, do not even joke, about giving these grey-haired teenagers an UNLIMITED POOL OF MANPOIWER to pick fights and get into half-baked military adventures.

You don't give an automatic firearm to an immature kid.

Most of the time from 1940 to 1971 when we had a draft, we were involved in military action. Most of the time since, we haven't been, and the military adventures post-Vietnam have been short, well-planned rabbit punches.

We WON THE COLD WAR on modernization, Granada and helping Britain with the Falklands. Not with a big army.

The only significant f*ck *p has been Iraq. Let's swallow the bitter medicine instead of pouring MORE of MY KIDS into an incompetently planned occupation. We need to partition the country and get out. If we stay there will be a civil war that we, as the colonial occupying power,. will properly be blamed for.

A draft will just delay the inevitable and up the body count.

2006-08-04 13:58:04 · answer #2 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0 0

As a member the military I have said this in the past. I belive that there are a great many skills a young person can gain from spending a few years with in a military setting. Each country has very different rules when it comes to the time you are required to serve. In my opinion I see no problem with young people being required to serve in the military from the time they are 18 to 21 years old. These 3 years would allow them to save money for future education,travel to different parts of the world and become part of something greater. For those of you who are not in the military or have no experience with the military culture what I am saying will be completely lost. Despite what the media portrays as well as the general consensus of the anti-militaristic movement states, an initial career with in the military gives young people a sense of accomplishment as well as a sense of what will be required of them latter on when they arrive in the work force. I don't belive that there should be compulsory service in the regular forces of a military but at least with in the reserve forces. The possibility of being required to go to an area where there is instability and fighting is possible but the majority of the peace keeping and war fighting is done by the regular forces. Being a Canadian soldier I have seen reserve soldiers volunteer for over seas duty and have complimented the regular forces quite well. If there was a term of service required to be served I would suggest that it be done with the realm of the reserve forces which would allow those young people to make a decision if they chose to follow through with a regular forces career or continue on with civilian education.

2006-08-04 14:01:22 · answer #3 · answered by rangeroverlad 2 · 0 1

That is not such a bad idea. It doesn't mean that they had to learn fighting or war skills. There are a thousand and one other efforts that could be used as a national/international service. Look at our ailing national parks and roads and bridges and tornado/natural disaster shelters, schools and libraries, that need work. If you look back at tremendous works that the WPA did decades ago that are still standing and the caliber of the work (mostly accomplished by young and untrained people under the guidance of a handful of the skilled) that still exhists today, why couldn't we re- try that old experiment. Who knows, it could create a sense of accomplishment , self-worth, and build new skills, that many of our youth have never experienced. Kind of like those "public works" did for others many years ago.

2006-08-04 14:07:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes.
Though it doesn't necessarily have to be military service, even though the amount of trades to be learnt in the armed forces is incredible some may find it objectionable.
Germany for example also has a social service, which involves work in hospital's, old people's homes etc.


Later: Just read some of the other answers that have happened while I answering. I cannot for the life of me, imagine living in a country with such a narrow minded view to national service. It doesn't have to be limited to the Army. And you wonder why we laugh at you!

2006-08-04 14:14:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. There's an assumption implied by your premise, namely, that our armed forces still instill a sense of duty, discipline and self-respect. What they instill, rather, is the habit of obedience to authority by a conditioned fear of disobedience and non-conformity.

Once upon a time, when America's armed forces were used to guard America, when there were noble purposes to which our soldiers were put, then young men could understand the necessity of bearing arms and do so with a quiet pride. But those days are gone. We lost them when we lost control over our government and our government gained control over us.

Instead of self-respect, there's self-deception. Instead of discipline, there's fear. Instead of duty, there's ambition. The national service should not be brought back. The national government should be completely disbanded because, as hard as our founding fathers tried to create an empire-proof constitutional republic, they obviously didn't try hard enough.

2006-08-04 13:59:22 · answer #6 · answered by David S 5 · 0 0

If you mean some sort of training that instills those values without the military draft, then I totally think, it's a good idea. The priorities in our youth seems to be somewhat twisted these days. 'Just look at the reality shows on TV: nothing but materiality and superficiality. With more kids spending more time in front of TV how days, I would think we could give them something more worth awhile for their sense of wellbeing. Time spent serving others and seeing how various people of the world live and what little importance their "matter of life-and-death" has in the great scheme of things would sure help them to appreciate more of what they have and what they are able to do.

2006-08-04 14:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by Nikki W 3 · 0 0

Yes, it most definitely should. It would certainly go a long way to instilling some discipline in today's youth. However unless Britain pulls out of Europe and abrogates the human rights act, that is never going to happen. The aforementioned act, and the compensation culture have turned us into a nation of softies.

2006-08-04 23:31:18 · answer #8 · answered by TrueBrit 3 · 0 0

No. I'm the mother of a soldier. I think the army brutalizes people and turns them into killers. If you're tough enough to take it, are you the kind of person you want to be? And if you're not tough enough to take it, you're broken.
Young men need fathers. We need to work on our society. We need to instill in ourselves decency and kindness and discipline.
The only time we need an army, is to protect ourselves.
Bullying is a form of discipline. I worked in the Navy and was shocked to see how the junior ratings were treated. Really, national service is the easy answer. It is our society that is rotten.

2006-08-04 22:07:29 · answer #9 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 0 0

That's a really difficult one. I think in the past it has probably proved to be good for the boys in the long run BUT perhaps thats all too easy for a woman to say. How about, as a deterant for offenders ( say six months service) - no that wont work, cos it may end up just an undisciplned rabble. I really dont know, but I DO think it should be thought about.

2006-08-04 14:06:24 · answer #10 · answered by lennylil 2 · 0 0

Maybe you should ask the U. S. Congress and Senate to take back the laws outlawing prayer in school and discipline in schools. Then maybe the youth can learn without going to what you are talking about which amounts to something like forced discipline instead of learned discipline......

2006-08-04 13:56:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers