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

2006-10-20 11:01:36 · 37 answers · asked by lifessuckssomuch 2 in Politics & Government Military

37 answers

Bring it back. My dad did national service, and said it soon kicked the cocky git out of him and made him into a responsible man. They teach self-reliance, self0respect, respect for others and teamwork, I think it did the world of good.

It would be beneficial today, instead of someone lounging about on jobsekers, they should be made to do NS after being so long on the dole, it might make them look a bit harder for work.

There are plenty of jobs out there, not all of them great, but anything has to be better than claiming dole.

I dont think a lot of todays teens could hack it. Youve only got to watch programmes like brat camp to see these cocky little gobshites reduced to tears asking for their mums after one day. It would instill them with some pride and respect, I think it would be good to bring it back.

Also, I think htat a certain percentage would suit life in the forces and want to stay, so it owuld help boost the number of servicemen & women.

2006-10-20 11:22:32 · answer #1 · answered by lozzielaws 6 · 2 0

What type of National Service you want?
Forest Service National
Corporation for National and Community Service
National Service-Learning etc...

2006-10-20 11:07:40 · answer #2 · answered by Jamil Ahmad G 3 · 0 0

I think there should be national service, including military. We can't even field enough soldiers to keep things going in a small country like Iraq. Everyone would be forced to learn a skill and discipline. Sweden uses it, everyone has to put two years in the military. The main reason the Roman empire fell is that it stopped using ethnic Romans as soldiers. So before the empire was formed and Hannibal attacked Rome, he won every battle. But he still lost the war because Rome had national service and an inexhaustible supply of veterans to take place of those who were killed or wounded. Hannibal was forced back just because of he couldn't replace his losses. A year later, when the tables were turned and Rome attacked Carthage, Carthage had an all volunteer army, which they couldn't rebuild in the time to repel Rome's attack and they didn't have a militia to draw upon. As a result Rome conquered Carthage. Six hundred years later Rome forgot the lesson of the importance of national service and abandoned it; ethnic Romans were no longer drafted, instead Rome used non-ethnic Romans in all their armies and when it came to do real hard fighting to keep the Empire togethor and repel the Goths, Visigoths and Huns' Rome not only lost its Empire, but Rome itself was conquered several times. A country without national service, might not have enough pool of trained reserves should things get real ugly.

2006-10-20 11:54:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's a very good idea. Even Switzerland, a country that has remained forever neutral, has national service and it results in a country where self esteem and respect for others is high. There's a story in the paper today about three hoodies killing a child in a push chair after a stolen car they were driving ran out of control. If these three and hundreds of others like them were subjected to army/air force/navy discipline over a two year period, everybody including other idiots such as those killers, would benefit.

2006-10-21 01:52:51 · answer #4 · answered by Rainman 4 · 0 0

I think a compulsory 2 year national service should be required. A choice between the military, or some volunteer service group, Red Cross etc. It would be good for the country not to mention give some badly need direction and sense of responsibility to today's youth. Freedom is not free. Everyone should contribute.

2006-10-20 11:13:26 · answer #5 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 2 0

I actually think it is a good idea.

Notice the countries where they have scrapped obligatory military service or its alternative social service and you see a youth with nothing to do. Looking for jobs with only the skills they eked out of their public education and whatever their parents had the time or care to teach them.

In Spain they had it back from the times of the dictatorship and it progressively got tuned down from a long period of time to just 9 months, as close to one's home as possible and with the option to serve in a non shooting social service for the same amount of time.

They would train a raw youth, who might not have been doing his best in school, and teach him mechanical skills, or how to operate electronic equipment that he'd never get near otherwise, and once finished, this youth left with a skill he could use in the work market, with recomendations and what not. Sometimes, already with job offers awaiting his return to the civilian life.

Then there is the social service. All that young energy that can be trained to care for the elderly or go help earthquake victims or serve as traffic wardens or firemen, etc. A training they can apply to other parts of their adult life or take up as a regular employment. Dangers aside (you can just as easily get hit by a car in London as pick up a fever in some lost land,) it is a great way to bring a positive experience to people who are still being formed by life, show them that we are all a part of a country that is losing its physical borders and needs to define how it faces the world without a fence.

2006-10-21 07:29:13 · answer #6 · answered by NotsoaNonymous 4 · 0 0

I suspect all those that think it is a good idea would consider themselves not to be eligible for it.
National service is good in that it instills discipline, but it is bad in that not everyone is suited to being a soldier and combat. Army life can be brutal so many people would not be able to cope. Conscription and national service, IMO, should only be used in times of war (and I don't mean Iraq). It could however also be used as a method of dealing with repeat offenders etc.

2006-10-20 11:55:16 · answer #7 · answered by PETER F 3 · 0 0

National Service fitted a place in history. Young men in those days were in the main self-disciplined and prepared to work. Looking around nowadays I doubt if any of the present day youth would last very long in a disciplined service..

2006-10-21 04:52:06 · answer #8 · answered by Rob Roy 6 · 0 0

Bring it back I think - maybe not for everyone but say for youngsters on benefit who purposely dont get work or look for a job - give them 6 months or else !!!! Also young offenders would be better with a sentence to complete national service than anything on offer now. The streets may be safer then xx

2006-10-20 11:05:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

By all means bring it back but not for the reason that many people want i.e. for the criminals of this system of ours or for the unemployed. National Service was brought into being to support the Army in a time of need. to train men and Women to be ready to fight for their country. We can see today that many people do not want to fight for the country that supports them but would rather try to bring it to its knee's. Even during National Service the criminal element found a way round serving they time!

2006-10-20 11:20:04 · answer #10 · answered by Roy J 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers