Before you call me crazy, here me out.
If everyone, say 18-35, was part of our military (not full time of course- you can still have a job, go to school- just when the gov't went to war you would be called up) our world would not have nearly the number of conflicts that we currently tolerate.
We would not get into wars so carelessly. It's easy to sell a war when all the troups are volunteers and the war won't affect the average Joe in any way, shape or form. But if we were all in it together, there would have to be a damn good reason to go fight. No more wars of choice, only wars of necessity.
This system would eliminate the moral hazard that politicians experience. Policy makers don't face the full burden of their decisions, so they tend to take greater risks than they would otherwise. If Senator XYZ knew that a vote for war would send his son packing off to the Middle East, that may change his vote.
Ironically, having a larger military would result in less fighting.
2007-03-23
12:35:29
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Cardinal Rule
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
This is a great question... I personally believe that yes we should. It causes people to be more patriotic overall, ensures the production of a more healthy lifestyle, through discipline and excersize, teaches you to work as a team.
Also part of your training should give you some real world skills. This is important since high school does not prepare you to work in the real world.
I do not think it should be for 18-35, maybe 18-28 or something. You do 2 years worth of training and full time duty they you can enlist all the way or just be a reserve or somethings.
North Korea has a 6million man standing army because of programs like this, and it is a great way to bolster our armed forces without cost a lot of money... you do not have to pay people for this, just the cost of training.
Patriotism is on the decline, but if the American military was a regular part of everyone's life at some point then I can see people having a much different view of the military and war. Also they would be more fit, and have more professional skills.
2007-03-23 12:50:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The concept of mandatory NATIONAL service is long overdue. President Clinton has often said that had he not been bogged down with persecution by Republicans, he would have made this the object of his Presidency.
National service means that BEFORE you are allowed to go to college or trade school or any secondary school, you have to give service to your country. It could be 2 years in the military, or 3 years in elder care or childcare, public works projects, the arts, or any of a thousand ways that would include everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION. The same would apply to all people seeking immigration to the USA.
I'm tired of all these snot-nosed kids talking about their rights and what they are owed.
National service is a means to give back for what you owe to your country. All civilized countries have it.
2007-03-23 12:47:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by gw_bushisamoron 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you think that our going to war has anything at all to do with our troops wanting to be there you are sadly misinformed. There would still be plenty of war because it is a political decision and has nothing to do with the will of the troops. I don't want soldiers fighting for me because they are afraid of death, I want soldiers who believe in their duty as soldiers and believe in the cause. I think manditory military works in countries such as Singapore because the society isn't as outspoken and people aren't used to doing whatever their will is. It would be an uproar here. Also, there are senator's sons currently deployed. This was is about much more that emotions of a senator.
2007-03-23 12:46:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jennylind 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes there should be mandatory military service and the only deferrments handed out would be for those who attend a Military School such as West Point to become officers.
2007-03-23 12:42:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by jeff_loves_life 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Okay, I'm not even going to waste the time trying to argue with you. Instead, I'm going to recommend that you read the graphic documentary titled "Addicted To War" by Joel Andreas. After that, if you can explain to me why mandatory conscription (which, to me, means slavery) is a good idea, I'll be more than willing to pay attention.
2007-03-23 12:46:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by knight2001us 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You pronounced which you acquire the "Negitive" which might mean you're going against it: I stay in Korea now. right here militia provider for men is mandatory for 2 years. maximum men hate it and that is extremely no longer hassle-free. i do no longer think of that is beneficial in any respect. Many men are only no longer decrease out for the militia. I additionally do no longer think of one would desire to be compelled to combat for any usa -- they would not experience a connection with or another reason. they additionally don't get any appreciate/gratitude while in uniform because of the fact people think of "nicely that is envisioned! no longer something specific in that!" -- and in case you attempt to get out of the provider you pass to penitentiary and in case you have a scientific subject you're only required to artwork in an place of work interest or another such nonsense for no pay. It additionally places their lives on carry for 2 years and you do no longer gets a commission ------ no person would desire to be compelled into the army, that is against loose will. some Ignorant sent me a negitive digital mail and that's my respond to him: No, certainly i'm a school student right here[Korea]- yet i visit be an English instructor right here quickly sufficient [i'm on the factor of recieving my BA in English Literature -- Do you extremely have a school degree?]------- i've got been deeply in contact with Korean subculture around 7-8 years now and have exceptionally much exclusivly Korean acquaintances and my boyfriend is Korean to boot-- I supply 1st hand money owed on Koreans view of the militia in Korea --- i ought to furnish 2 shits in case you spent a decade in Korea[He spent in basic terms 2 years] interior the U. S. military ------ Koreans additionally hate the U. S. military because of the fact of their unprofessional additudes and permiscuity with close by women persons; so who's giving the U. S. a bad call now?-- I doubt you extremely have any contacts with any Koreans in any respect -- So have a superb day.
2016-10-01 09:37:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by durrell 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why? To fight for a broken system? Your vote never counted (see Diebold voter fraud)
The stockmarket is nothing but a fleecing tool for the criminal element
www.thesanitycheck.com
The media is owned by the same
search who owns what!
So if you want to die for the riches right to fleece fellow Americans go ahead, slave.
2007-03-23 12:44:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Frankly 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mandatory service could work....I would like to see every 18 yo, upon graduation enter the military for at least 2 years. Good training for life, help them mature, learn ethics, disipline, respect. It could improve life in these United States.
2007-03-23 12:40:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes
2007-03-23 12:39:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nea'A 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
eh i definetly don't think that's a good idea at all. people shouldn't have to be part of an organization if they aren't willing. it would be an invasion of the freedom that the people who willingly join the military fight for.
2007-03-23 12:39:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by starlightloveaffair 2
·
1⤊
0⤋