Supergrunch Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Well since this discussion goes still on I might want to bring another apsect into this. Without brave young men and women in the UK, France, USA and other allied forces we would probably still live in a dark age in Europe with a crazy Fuhrer doing whatever he pleases. Without a decent army most of you would probably salute to a german leader wearing a svastika now. Also please don't interpret this as someone trying to glorify the allied army - I am from Austria, my grandfather fought for the germans and was imprisoned by soviet forces. I still regard the allied army as the liberators of Europe even if a german victory might have been better for my personal agenda. Agreed Europe right now is not at the door step of a real global war but may I remind you all that terrorism is considered as a form of war aswell - and every country needs a defense against that threat. Also think what happens in 20 years ... more and more people live on this planet and primary resources like food and water will be the next targets for wars. It is vital to secure borders and prevent the civilian population - this is a paragraph in most constitutions in nearly every country. Not everyone wants to be a part of the federal armed forces or anything similar - granted this is their view of life. In Austria you can either serve in the army for 8 months including border patrol or work in a civil institution like the red cross. So if someone wants to join the army wether it is for money, prestige or the lack of a different job - PLEASE LEAVE THEM BE. Not everyone in the army is a idiot without a future and not everyone without an army career is a guilty of treason and a hippy. My point is that armed forces are sadly neccessary in our modern society - in battles, humanitarian missions or whatever. As long as a democratic government has approved of that mission you have to accept it. That is democracy not "They should do what I think"-ocracy. You're definitely right in saying that armies are necessary - as I said before, someone has to want to do it. However, the second world war is a bad example to use, because the only reason the army was good enough to stop the germans was beacuse we had conscription, meaning that a fair few people who fought wouldn't have joined the army, were they given the choice.
EEVILMURRAY Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Just be aware that in a lot of countries joining a foreign military service counts as treason and you can lose your citizenship and stuff. SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP!
system_error Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 You're definitely right in saying that armies are necessary - as I said before, someone has to want to do it. However, the second world war is a bad example to use, because the only reason the army was good enough to stop the germans was beacuse we had conscription, meaning that a fair few people who fought wouldn't have joined the army, were they given the choice. Yes of course but also a big share came from people already enlisted and I would say the second world war was not only won by a higher number of soldiers but most part because there has been a regular army prepared for such circumstances - providing strategic data, supplies and stuff. Also the RAF is not a part of the army which has a lot of drafters gotten into - but it was a dangerous and very vital part of winning. Without the RAF germans would invaded Great Britain with a overwhelming surplus of soldiers (=> operation "Sealion"). SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP! Hehe ... stupid movie ;-) Yeah if you serve in the foreign legion you become a french citizen after serving long (at least that is how I remember it) enough and not getting killed. But before I serve for the french army and lose the right to be a austrian citizen I rather join the armed forces of my own country...
MoogleViper Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Good points system. I think we should have some form of national service.
Sheikah Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Yes of course but also a big share came from people already enlisted and I would say the second world war was not only won by a higher number of soldiers but most part because there has been a regular army prepared for such circumstances - providing strategic data, supplies and stuff. Also the RAF is not a part of the army which has a lot of drafters gotten into - but it was a dangerous and very vital part of winning. Without the RAF germans would invaded Great Britain with a overwhelming surplus of soldiers (=> operation "Sealion"). The main flaw to this argument, however, is that now is not then. While fighting in the WWs was definitely seen as honourable, a lot do not think the same of the Iraq war.
EEVILMURRAY Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Hehe ... stupid movie ;-) NO! j00 are incorrect.
system_error Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 The main flaw to this argument, however, is that now is not then. While fighting in the WWs was definitely seen as honourable, a lot do not think the same of the Iraq war. Of course not but unless I am wrong the majority of US/UK people voted for their current governments (yup I know the US voting system is somehow flawed) and that makes it a democratic choice. That those decisions itself can be faulty aswell lays in the human nature - we are not flawless. For me the whole Iraq/Afghanistan war is not about liberation (might be a nice side effect) but about power in the middle east and oil. Companies earing big money which also have political influence is what this war is about in my opinion. So I would not join the army right now to fight a in my opinion pointless war - but I would join to help people get their food, build houses, repair bridges and act as a police in guerilla wars between rivaling families in a african village. The army has enough duties - the question is if you can live with the ones which are not regarded as right at the moment. So if you now join the army to fight a war in Iraq it is your own decision - that this decision might be morally wrong for other people is the other side of the medal. Most countries use a majority based voting system - the problem is that politicians are not really bound to their promises BUT I say that everyone just should follow their heart on how far they agree with their leaders. As long as they know the truth and not fall for cheap propaganda. People get more and more controlled by various organisations and since I am still young and idealistic I think this is something everyone should stand up against. So if someones joins the army and you think it is wrong - try to convince him not to by explaining your thoughts but without using stereotypes or any other prejudices you might have. I know this is very hard especially when you are 100% sure that you are right but this is the true way of democratic and liberal thinking.
MoogleViper Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Of course not but unless I am wrong the majority of US/UK people voted for their current governments (yup I know the US voting system is somehow flawed) and that makes it a democratic choice. A) the UK voting system is very flawed. B) The labour government said they wouldn't go into Iraq. They also said they wouldn't introduce top up fees. What have we learned about labour? Well for a lot of the population absolutely nothing.
Sheikah Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Of course not but unless I am wrong the majority of US/UK people voted for their current governments (yup I know the US voting system is somehow flawed) and that makes it a democratic choice. Not really; the party with the majority vote won, but that doesn't mean the majority voted for war. We can't we be held responsible for every thing the government does.
system_error Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 That is the problem - if party A promises not to go to war and gets elected but then changes her mind nobody can do anything except to hope they stop or vote different at the next election. Then the next problem comes into mind. Party A said they don't support a war but has not enough votes and partners with Party B which only helps if Party A starts to support a war. This goes on and on and as a citizen you lose the interest in elections, don't go to vote because after all it does not really make a difference. Politicians get a lot of money and do whatever they like. But if someone joins the army because he wants to it was his own decision which should respected by everyone even if the person joined because of (depending on the viewpoint) wrong motives.
Paj! Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 I think we should have some form of national service. FTL. I'd rather give up my identity and go and live as a hermit with a beard and a pipe (and a parrot by my side) than go to war. Sorry, but I hate shit making me confirm to shit, specially when it involves running into gunfire.
Jamba Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 FTL. I'd rather give up my identity and go and live as a hermit with a beard and a pipe (and a parrot by my side) than go to war. Sorry, but I hate shit making me confirm to shit, specially when it involves running into gunfire. Don't be so quick to jump the gun. That post was actually made as a responnse to the Austrian National Service system. Go and read what the other people have written, you don't have to be part of the armed forces but you do have to serve the country in some way.
Strider Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 Maybe you should try watching 'Ross Kemp in Afganistan' (If you already havn't) It may give you a little insight as to what you'd possibly be doing if you did join, actually i think it's on Youtube in 5 parts.
danny Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 Just wodered what your thaughts are now king v? Any plans to join or have you decided against it?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 18, 2008 Author Posted September 18, 2008 Just wodered what your thaughts are now king v? Any plans to join or have you decided against it? Nah...Guess I was just in a state of depression. Joined the 2nd year of a BSc Multimedia Computing course, whilst being given lots of monies through elite sports bursuries. Too good to resist. TBH, i don't think i will ever join the army.
Paj! Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 I rewatched Hair recently, so I'm still firmly a hippie about the military. Not that anyone really cared.
mario114 Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 There are clearly pros and cons to signing up, and I don't think it's something that can be done lightly. History has shown us the need for an army, and no one can deny how well our troops have done recently and how much they have sacrificed for us. It may be worth going to your local careers office, as you will be able to find out more about what would be expected of you, and get an idea as to weather or not it's right for you. They must be used to getting a lot of people walk through their doors who are unsure of weather it's right for them, and I'm sure they are good at judging weather or not a person would fit in.
Paj! Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 There are clearly pros and cons to signing up, and I don't think it's something that can be done lightly. History has shown us the need for an army, and no one can deny how well our troops have done recently and how much they have sacrificed for us.It may be worth going to your local careers office, as you will be able to find out more about what would be expected of you, and get an idea as to weather or not it's right for you. They must be used to getting a lot of people walk through their doors who are unsure of weather it's right for them, and I'm sure they are good at judging weather or not a person would fit in. Sorry, I'm no grammar saint myself, but your use of "weather" over "whether" really annoyed my eyes.
mario114 Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 Sorry, I'm no grammar saint myself, but your use of "weather" over "whether" really annoyed my eyes. Yeer sorry about that, is a really bad habit that I still haven’t kicked.
LukeLee Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Well since this discussion goes still on I might want to bring another apsect into this. Without brave young men and women in the UK, France, USA and other allied forces we would probably still live in a dark age in Europe with a crazy Fuhrer doing whatever he pleases. Without a decent army most of you would probably salute to a german leader wearing a svastika now. I have to disagree with this point. Britian was strong enough to hold off the Nazis (because we are a good force and because we are not on mainland europe so we are not as easy to invade). But the main reasons they were defeated was because they went for Russia in conditions they couldnt handle and they were stupid enough to take on America and the A-bomb. Anyway, my stance on joining. In ways I think if i knew I had a designed career path in Psychology I would be interested, but I think psychologists would be employed by the army on a freelance basis. Generally though I think I'd be more suited to a more autnomous role where I can hold and express my own views, rather than have my actions decided by a government department (and every new government elected) for the rest of my working life. I wouldnt say I'm anti-army, I believe we need an army, just dont agree with everything they do - but here's the thing, with the big decisions its not the army that makes the decisions it's government again.
mario114 Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 On a simular topic, did anyone watch the bbc documentry "undercover soldier"? -Some of the stuff seemed quite harsh, but they are training to fight wars so it's never going to be nice.
Recommended Posts