The debate "Should military service be mandatory" was started by
April 3, 2017, 8:39 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave, neveralone, MajorGeneralX, Nayana89 and 11 visitors agree.
ProfDoke, wmd, Jericho, thereal, diana26, JordDorrell, EthanTReilly, Ematio, SirIntegra, devindel and 15 visitors disagree.
bump. haha memerios.
i definitely try to consider others.
ideology does get interesting.
where this administration and Congress break from those views is in the details.
the right is all about us first, but you can do that without scapegoating groups. that along with their assault on science is what I call their betrayal of truth.
their betrayal of promises is their promise to bring back manufacturing when they know fully well there will be no jobs in those fully automatic factories. their taxes will not help small business or the middle class, etc.
these have nothing to do with right wing ideals but a complete betrayal of the people of this nation on any side of the debate.
every right for themselves, not so much for others. the rights of internal minority groups, or external anyone are not considered. and I'm not only talking about the US and right now, although I will most certainly include them.
like I said selfish self-interest. also a strong trend towards authoritarian strong men.
this is of course generally speaking, but it is 100% true to varying degrees of almost all right wing views and governments. your views as I see them are right wing when it comes to familial issues, not in foreign policy or economics (although you aren't far left economic either, not trying to imply that), and I wouldn't even consider you right wing on other social issues like race, other religions, etc.
I meant come up with a plan for the military. the right holds on to just about every right. privacy being one of the top. apparently not for our top though.
it appears both America's voluntary enlistment is 3 to 4 years and is reals mandatory one is 2 to 3. I think these are reasonable lengths. 1 year sounds too short.
and neveralone, I don't consider you right wing. you identify with the right primarily because of abortion, and a belief that Christianity is under attack which is one of our major disagreements.
most other issues you seem moderate to left to me.
institute what? A monarchy?
they betrayed their promises to you, and they betrayed the truth, but they are very much in line with traditional right wing beliefs: my nation first, my religion first, my values first. everyone else can rot.
sorry, including boot camp.
how long is the usual service in the US now? israel?
I was thinking 2 to 4 years... after boot camp. with exceptions for people who wish to pursue advanced, long degrees and have the grades to back up their dream.
I think your argument is very logical, but logic has failed us in the past, especially a priori.
we should examine the effect mandatory military service had on foreign policy in other countries in the past and consider that people may not always react the way you want them too.
haha I was thinking giving a year at least to truly get the benefits.
no. they have betrayed our core ideas and we are following them blindly. once better management happens then we could institute something
That is true. I meant it more in a general policy sense than a desire to see it implemented immediately.
It would need to be discussed in the national level before any decisions were made to implement anything like this, but that is what this forum exists for. To discuss things.
As for the length, it would depend on how it was implemented. Many countries with mandatory service start at around 6 months required. I would say between 6 months and a year would give sufficient time to train people and have them in be productive for a bit. It could also be longer if people want to learn a skill or trade in the military giving people an option for education while still providing a net benefit to society.
Another benefit would be a trained population. People talk about the need for firearms to resist tyranny, but without training that can only accomplish so much. Those who would oppose oppression would benefit from being part of a military that teaches the skills needed to succeed. It would also help in case of open conflict since there would be reduced need to train recruits since they'd already be trained.
you could have a good point, I'm just worried about the in-between period as public opinion, and even more so public policy, crawls at a snails pace.
I think we should also consider the perspective in Congress and the white house when making this decision, considering the right wing, nationalistic, self-interested leadership that is dismissing the importance of human rights abroad. now may not be the time to enlist our population.
true. how long would they have to be involved?
That is actually part of why I think it would promote a more peaceful nation. Presently, people can ignore the invasions and aggression. It would be much harder to remain so disinterested if your kids, nieces, nephews, siblings, etc shared the risk.
I already don't support aggressive unless it is absolutely necessary, but there are too many people who either don't care or see it as a way to make a profit.
mandatory military service is acceptable in a nation under constant attack (israel), or a nation in complete peace (Switzerland). in a nation that consistently invades others, service should remain voluntary. I would not support sending my children to die in a foreign nation over a cause I don't believe in.
I could support that. I purposely took a more extreme position because it allows for more debate.
The problem with offering better benefits but not making it mandatory is that we lose some of the benefits. There would still be a class distinction, which is currently dividing the nation and causing conflict. There would not be more national identity, since it would not be something that unified everyone. There would also not be the health benefits since those with no self disciplined would be less likely to join regardless of the benefits.
While I agree that it would be a loss of freedom to mandate military service, I don't think it would be an extreme loss. There are nations with mandatory service, and the people there are happy and the society has benefited. Finland is a good example.
I think that an alternative is to provide great benefits. like actual fully paid college and ect. to make it mandatory would make us lose our choice in this which would be a lost. however I wholly support people who join the military. I beleive they should have many benefits and respect.
There are valid arguments both for and against mandatory military service, but I somewhat support the idea.
Mandatory military service promotes political awareness, since governmental decisions, especially national security issues, hit home more when people are more connected to the issue. Mandatory military service would prompt everyone to be connected. This means politicians are unlikely to want to declare war or invade unless it is necessary. This could prevent future actions like those that caused the power vacuum in the Middle East, allowing the rise of ISIS.
Military service also teaches many skills that are valuable, and some that seem to be less entrenched than previously. Teamwork, punctuality, and self discipline are all taught in the military, and benefit people in every walk of life. The constant refrain is that kids today don't know how to work for what they want and simply feel entitled. While I disagree with this sentiment, serving in the armed forces would force young people to work hard, whether they like it or not.
It could also help benefit the nation in other, less obvious ways. There is currently an obesity epidemic. The demands on physical fitness in the military could combat this. That would reduce the medical costs of all of the weight related illnesses thus prevented. It would teach firearm safety. This could prevent the deaths and injuries due to firearm accidents.
Finally, it would bolster a national identity and unity. If everyone was required to serve no matter what, it would give all people something in common. So long as there was no way to buy your way out of service, it could help reduce the anger against the "elites" since everyone is treated the same. This, combined with the shared experiences, could help bolster progress towards finding common ground and reduce the divisions in society.