Bringing back the draft

**stroller** · 14-07-2006, 08:40 PM

^
That's not what military service is about, try and find your thinking cap, Marmite.

What about compulsory civil service, if your aim is to make better citizens out of them?
Washing the elderly's bums and pushing wheelchairs in hospitals, or picking up rubbish in parks could be an alternative to shooting at targets, climbing obstacles and being shouted at?

**Eliminator** · 14-07-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

^
That's not what military service is about, try and find your thinking cap, Marmite.

What about compulsory civil service, if your aim is to make better citizens out of them?
Washing the elderly's bums and pushing wheelchairs in hospitals, or picking up rubbish in parks could be an alternative to shooting at targets, climbing obstacles and being shouted at?

stroller, you and a couple others here have their thinking caps on wrong to think that all you learn in the service is to kill people.

In basic training, you might be taught to use a weapon and do a hell of a lot of marching and exercise but it damn sure isn't about how to kill people on a daily basis. Drill instructors hammer you with stuff about following orders and to work as a team.

After this period, then you go on to "Adanced Individual Training". This is the point where you will be trained for a specific job. Most inducties have a choice BEFORE joining to what type of job they will be trained in and in certain cases, where their first duty station will be.. This will depend on your ability to pass tests prior to joining as to where you will be placed and or what job you will be trained in. There are a certain percentage that opt for training to be combat soldiers and that is there choice. Agreed, there are some people that are not capable of passing tests and will be directed to where they can best be used.

Maybe there should be a condition where the inductie can opt out from being sent into war situations but not to be excluded from National Sevice.

In the Army, and I would think any branch of the service, you have the best training available. Plenty of guys and gals come out of the service to get great jobs once their time in is over. It has been the norm for quite a few years that you can receive a free college education with also some pay.

It's like this: If you haven't been in, then you can't know. In other letters: YDKSsStFU

**man with no head** · 14-07-2006, 09:50 PM

Have a question (and I'm not trying to be pigheaded or troll) but what is the difference in the end if a person's goal is to get training and a great job whether said person travels through the bowels of the military or the bowels of a typical college and then into the workforce? If the end justifies the means then isn't it reasonable to see that there are two paths to the same end? It seems like to me it would be cheaper on the taxpayer to not put someone through training and provide 3 squares a day on someone who doesn't know their ass from their head nor have the business being there in the first place and instead invest the money on someone who is not only going to see it through but make a career out of it.

**baldrick** · 14-07-2006, 09:58 PM

one thing military training does is it makes you learn self dicipline and instils confidence in your abilities.

then again a lot of time in the military is learning to hurry up so you can wait.

**Mr Earl** · 14-07-2006, 10:06 PM

I got my draft card in 1974. I fell in between the cracks.
The all voluntary military of the USA is the best in the world.
My families military history goes back to george washington.

I regret not serving for my country despite all her faults.

**Marmite the Dog** · 14-07-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

My families military history goes back to george washington.

Do you still toast His/Her Majesty at mealtimes like Mr Washington did?

**Eliminator** · 15-07-2006, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

Have a question (and I'm not trying to be pigheaded or troll) but what is the difference in the end if a person's goal is to get training and a great job whether said person travels through the bowels of the military or the bowels of a typical college and then into the workforce? If the end justifies the means then isn't it reasonable to see that there are two paths to the same end? It seems like to me it would be cheaper on the taxpayer to not put someone through training and provide 3 squares a day on someone who doesn't know their ass from their head nor have the business being there in the first place and instead invest the money on someone who is not only going to see it through but make a career out of it.

I'll try to answer this as short as possible. The reason a lot of people go into the military is that they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths and can't afford to pay their way through college, the military gives them the opportunity to get that education plus training for a job they can use after their time in is over.

The military does take people that don't know their asses from their head and in some cases does the service wrong in the long time. I have to say that at least they try to bring the better parts out of people in their training. Unfortunately there are going to be some bad apples and it isn't always noticed soon enough to get rid of them.

Not all people are meant for a career in the service and the military does lose money on training some people. It does give an opportunity to some that might not have any other option. Not too many companies you can work for that will give the same to people that work for them or even to be hired without prior training.

**endure** · 15-07-2006, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Eliminator

Originally Posted by surasak

Have a question (and I'm not trying to be pigheaded or troll) but what is the difference in the end if a person's goal is to get training and a great job whether said person travels through the bowels of the military or the bowels of a typical college and then into the workforce? If the end justifies the means then isn't it reasonable to see that there are two paths to the same end? It seems like to me it would be cheaper on the taxpayer to not put someone through training and provide 3 squares a day on someone who doesn't know their ass from their head nor have the business being there in the first place and instead invest the money on someone who is not only going to see it through but make a career out of it.

I'll try to answer this as short as possible. The reason a lot of people go into the military is that they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths and can't afford to pay their way through college, the military gives them the opportunity to get that education plus training for a job they can use after their time in is over.

Then it's a shame that those people who weren't born with priviledges don't have some other way to take that step up. The prime function of (any) military is to break things and kill people. That's what they do.

**Marmite the Dog** · 15-07-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by endure

The prime function of (any) military is to break things and kill people. That's what they do.

I think you're wrong actually.

The prime funtion of any modern military is to provide security, engineering and general peacekeeping. Killing people should be further down the list IMO.

Obviously, if you're talking about the US military, then their prime function seems to be pretending that they're all heroes in a 'B' grade movie, and making a mess of things.

**lom** · 15-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Aah, that movie !
I've seen it during 40 years under many houndred different titles.
Always ends with the good force saving the world

(Goebbels couldn't have done it better)

**stroller** · 15-07-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

The prime funtion of any modern military is to provide security, engineering and general peacekeeping. Killing people should be further down the list IMO.

Oh, I didn't realise the Brits went to the Falklands on a peace-keeping mission, what kind of engineering did they provide there?

**lom** · 15-07-2006, 05:38 PM

You seem to understand a bit more than me stroller - I never understood why they went there at all.

**Marmite the Dog** · 15-07-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

The prime funtion of any modern military is to provide security, engineering and general peacekeeping. Killing people should be further down the list IMO.

Oh, I didn't realise the Brits went to the Falklands on a peace-keeping mission, what kind of engineering did they provide there?

Do you understand the difference between 'prime' and 'only'??

**Eliminator** · 15-07-2006, 09:15 PM

It's almost that I wish someone would invade Germany to see it if the stroller would do ANYTHING, besides spout his PC crap.

to you stroller with your humanist/pacifist attitude.

**Thetyim** · 15-07-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by lom

I never understood why they went there at all

I was led to believe that is was something to do with Falklands Island Trading Company belonging to a certain gentleman called Mr Thatcher, but I could be wrong.

**Marmite the Dog** · 15-07-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Thetyim

Originally Posted by lom

I never understood why they went there at all

I was led to believe that is was something to do with Falklands Island Trading Company belonging to a certain gentleman called Mr Thatcher, but I could be wrong.

Because the island is a British terretory and is populated by British subjects who are entitled to protection from an aggressive invader.

**Whiteshiva** · 15-07-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Eliminator

It's almost that I wish someone would invade Germany to see it if the stroller would do ANYTHING, besides spout his PC crap.

to you stroller with your humanist/pacifist attitude.

I agree - thank God not everybody is like him!!!!!

.......hang on........

**lom** · 15-07-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Because the island is a British terretory

Ok, now I understand what Great Britain is, without that island you would only be England, right ?

Thread: Bringing back the draft

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions