Conscription

Post Reply New Topic

What is your opinion on conscription?

Personally, I am, and have always been, strongly oppossed to conscription, as I consider it pure slavery!

I avoided conscription in Denmark because of my Aspergers Syndrome, but I am still very much against it.

I am against conscription because it diverts human resources away from other valuable parts of our economic structure towards the cause of warfare. I would rather have increases in incentives than a draft so that way we will tend to have less valuable workers go towards the cause of warfare. That being said, I have no moral opposition to a draft and am fine with it if the situation is so dire as to require war socialism and the evils associated with that.

The U.S military opposes the draft too for a simple reason - economically its really inefficient. You have a lot of people who don't want to be there, they're trained which costs tens of thousands of dollars per draftee, and then when their required term is up their gone. They'd rather have people in there who are there because they want to be there, who plan to make a life of it, and who'll have lots of experience just because - veterans know what they're doing, the sunk cost of training them is more than repaid, and they make good trainers. Of course there's the tactical angle as well, you don't wanna have a football team out with the 3rd and 4th string players against another team's first string, this is what draftees are and since weak links in a military strategy on the ground are more than destructive they really don't want people to be there who shouldn't be there.

I hope whoever supports the war gets drafted

And I hope whoever doesn't gets deported.

hehehe

PWNED!! !

You a killer?

You a looser??

No, although I think I'd make a good one.

I did almost join the army. I applied for the College First program, scored a perfect score on my aptitude test, and then had a rather bad experience when I went to get the deal finalized, including but not limited to, a "guidance councellor" trying to trick me into signing up as a calvary scout rather than for college first. I ended up refusing to sign a contract because the particular guidance councellor was being so dishonest with me. My army career got put on hold for a couple months, and I found out I had Aspergers and ADD (not ADHD), which ended it.

So next time anyone prattles about "you can't stick up for your country's military ambitions without being willing to serve in the army" - I was, nearly did, and if we ever needed a citizen's militia I'd be the first one on the battle field, a magnum in each hand.

If you're going to insult someone, I suggest you spell it right. Its like calling someone 'stoopid.' I'm not sure if I should send you a 'sympathy' card or not expressing my concern over your abilities to take care of yourself.



Do you even know WHY you'd pick up a magnum in each hand? You type as if you WANT to kill. Like you're a psychopath but you know the limits of the law and the one reason those 'magnums in each hand' havent killed someone, already, is because of the consequences. Come war, though, you'll be a killing machine. You'll make your superiors proud by killing other people. Why doesn't that work in civilized times? Ahh that's right, because those people are put into jail. Nations fighting another nation is highly comparable to a gang killing another in 'gang warfare.' You both have beliefs, values, loyalty to the "family" (or nation, or religion, whatever tit you need to suck from)

Ironically, in civilization, people who talk of killing like that are investigated and observed, but in times of war, no, you are praised as a hero. Funny that a 'nation' going to war automatically makes 'killing' legal even though its the same as killing someone on the street because their ideas differed from your own. But the only thing on your mind is being patriotic and standing up for your nation, no matter what your nation stands up for. They could stand up for a bowl of rice and you'd be there like a Nazi SS soldier, proud to impress Hitler and be decorated for your achievement.

I doubt you've placed any thought into this beyond blind patriotism. I doubt you understand the horror of the first time you step on a battlefield. I doubt you understand the feeling of having your best friend, potentially your only friend, shot to death beside you. I doubt you understand that after that happens, the next 'bad guy' you kill will be out of blind passion and the reasons for the war ever happening do not exist during that 'blind passion of killing' and THAT kill was more out of revenge, no patriotism. I hope you understand that war has nothing to do with you except the fact you are merely a pawn sent to kill other pawns who were sent to kill pawns. You're no different then a terrorist, you're just on this side. If you were an Iraqi, you'd do that same, only for their side.

But, I'm a coward for being independent and thinking for myself and not signing my life away to fight someone else's battles. This would be a label that pawns use to describe independent people because a 'pawn' cannot think for himself and was told that people, like myself, should be labeled as cowards. This also works because if you fear having a negative label attached to you, such as coward, you'll be less inclined to join me but stay and kill other pawns.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have values. I have 'human' values of independence, honour, and truth and these are much larger then any nations 'values' as they tend to lie to their people so honour and truth are out. And conscription means independence is gone. If the war was that bad, if peoples lands were actually threatened, you wouldnt need a 'draft' to get people involved, they would fight out of fear for themselves and their land ACTUALLY being attacked. You've never been oppressed, you live in the freest nation in the world (arguably) yet, you talk and wish to fight like it was 1774 and the British were imposing on you. The only people imposing on you are the leaders that send you to war.

You think if an Iraqi thought like me things wouldnt be different? Their government orders them to war, mine orders me to war but neither of us go? Instead, we find each other on the net, discuss our differences but fall back onto our independence (what we have in common). We end up doing what our "leaders" should be doing but instead, our leaders FOCUS on our differences and use that AS a reason for war. Not our similarities, but our differences.

We are aspies here. We are different. Some of us cannot get a friend because of that. Some of us here are bullied because of it. Then we pick up an arm and do exactly what we've cried for all our lives.

What is it you want out of this war or any war? What is it you truely will fight for? Someone pushing a button or an actual threat? Do you believe your leaders because I will tell you they are liars and reinforce that fact everyday.

The thrill of war is what you seek and the blind patriotism your leaders instill into your mind (much the same way an extreme muslim fights with blind passion) is all there is left. The truth is simple - you've no reason to fight. Never have, never will. People in power take those who are not in power, some of them voluntarily because they may be as 'forceful' as those in power are, and they send you off to a battlefield THEY selected but will never step foot on.

You view a war from only one side, I argue as someone in the middle, an observer. I observe the thoughts, the psychology (my love of WW2 is the psychological aspect soldiers had), and everything else that brought people there.

During WW2, 15-20% of soldiers could honestly kill another person (they aimed for 'kill shots,' not 'belly' shots). 85% in the Vietnam war said they could kill another person. Hmm, now, a blind patriot would be proud of that number but Corvus questioned it. Why or why are those numbers so different? Well, turns out humans have an issue of killing other humans. Wouldn't you know? Well, thank god the military realized that and did something about it. Its truely amazing what hate and propaganda can do to make you pull the trigger 60+% more of the time but I'm sure you've looked into all of this. I'm just stating nothing relevant or new. You may even be angry and all ready to send a rebuttal down the lines of calling me a 'coward' or, what you have said already, 'someone who should be deported.'

The only difference is, I feed my facts from life, from human nature, from mere existence. Your beliefs in war, they stem from someone else. But, I guess that even counts as human nature, doesn't it? Your argument will be someone else's. Remember, I view war from the middle and you're wrong, and the other side is wrong. The problem is - both of you picked up arms.

And just to make sure we're very clear, I've nothing against "defending" ones nation (preferably, nation should actually be 'values' such as independence of 'self') but the term 'defend' is now being used to describe how to 'attack.'

I'm not sure if you've got all your facts correct, Corvus. I'd read about those percentages in relation to WW2 and Vietnam, but thought the percentages referred to those who were actually aiming for kill shots, as opposed to "saying" they were aiming for kill shots as you've stated, and that the increase was due to training in a technical sense (like reacting automatically to certain situations), rather than instilling hate. I agree with the assertion regarding humans having an issue with killing other humans, however.

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archi ... t_kill.htm

I dont know how you can agree with "humans having an issue with killing other humans" then state, right before it, that my information was incorrect and that they were asking a different question to get that 15-20%. Which one is it?



55%?

I was wrong, look:


95%, not 85%. Although, I think higher numbers here because of the simple fact that the Vietnamese HAD a reason to kill where as Americans were merely killing to survive. Most didn't know why they were there.

There are a reason 'psychologist' exist to deal with things like 'Shell shock' which 'normal' people do not experience. The training issues were upgraded to DEAL with that low percentage and it worked, now killing is automatic. Its blind. Its effective.

First off, humans do have a problem with killing other humans in certain situations. I don't dispute that. Your statement didn't compare like with like: you compared statistics about people who could kill someone with statistics about those who said they could kill someone. Maybe that was just a syntax error on your part.

Secondly, it's hardly an unbiased source! But...



And...



You see it's training, not hate by brain-washing. And what's wrong in training soldiers to kill effectively?

I dont think you're understanding the point. You're getting caught up in 'statistics' itself and not what those stats say. You interpreting them incorrectly. That stat represents soldiers who said they could kill versus those who could not. 20% said they could kill, 80% said they could not. It does not MATTER what scenario that was in. Air fighters in WW2 can often be heard of stating "its easy to shoot down a plane as you are not 'killing a person' so much as you are 'destroying a plane.'" They make numerous comparisons to those on the ground looking at an individual versus a machine. Many even stated that they felt a bit of relief when they saw the pilot get out. Guess what? Another unspoken rule was to not shoot pilots that had ejected and were parachuting to the ground - I've read that one of the only countries to do that were the Polish who were doing so out of revenge. They had a reason. Why weren't these pilots effective killing machines. Have you, in your side of the debate, analyzed the difference between shooting a vehicle, such as a plane, compared to shooting a person?

This isnt 'well, in this scenario I couldnt kill but in this one I could.' Its not as a simple as that. Killing someone because the alternative would be YOU dying is not a 100% correct nor is it the end. These stats include the battle as a whole. Shooting Germans in the open, shooting germans in a truck, etc. This was merely a simple question of 'could you effectively kill' and the result was 'no.'

There's a reason military life is different from civilian. We call 'civilians' peasents. In military, we call them 'pawns.' Both are negative terms, they scream of weakness. You have no reason to kill anyone until you step foot on the battlefield, know that the other side is in the exact same boat. Do NOT analyze this from 'one' side but view the progression it takes from a dispute to start, a war to be declared, and people to be mobilized and what exactly is happening during this time.

You have to analyze, more specifically, what you're going to fight FOR. If its oil, do you think its healthy to train people to be killers? Why don't police officers kill more? Hell, even they state how its extremely difficult to kill a person, even when they are threatened. Are you digesting this fact, yet?

The Iraq war is nothing but BS. The Nazi's, themselves, were trained to kill but ask them if they knew why they were blowing up Poland. These people are clueless as to why they are doing what they are doing, all they've been told is how to do it. Do you think thats correct? You could say 'Well, us 'allies' need to be trained to kill Nazi's because they are killing' which is super, but its far from a solution to anything, its only horribly correcting a problem after its already started. The Nazi's should have never taken up arms to begin with but they LISTENED to their leaders and went into training. The result was a genocide and 60 million people dead.

My discussion is deeper then 'military teaches me to kill, end of story' it extends WAY beyond that. The main point is, no one wanted to be there so why was anyone there?

If you would like to discuss the military training people to kill to defend against a REAL threat, then by all means, training is required for order. Its logical and many people are clueless on what to do. However, you need to have a threat. An 'idea' is not a threat. An 'Alien race coming to wipe us out and take out planet' IS a threat. There isnt a single reason any human has to take an arm up, not one. BOTH sides.

I am against conscription against absolutely necessary. I think today conscription is less necessary then it has been the past (even in war time) because the military has a very professional image. Additionally, the pay is better then it once was (although it still isn't much). If it was necessary to raise the military size but serious difficulties were being had, a big jump in pay would I think be a better idea then conscription. Of course, this mean more appliers and more work to get rid of people like me who don't belong.

There are some cases in which I could imagine a crisis and war on so many fronts or some kind of internal war in which there was no choice but conscription.

I understand that some people think a draft violates the Thirteenth Ammendment (barring slavery and involuntary servitude), but I think to completely ignore the actual intentions of the amendment (which had nothing to do with conscription, and which had in fact just been in effect) would be incorrect from a constitutional standpoint.

Corvus, by extending the discussion to the Nazis I think you are making a serious mistake. Even if the war in Iraq was a mistake, the tactics that are being used are not comparable to the Nazis, or even the Allies in World War II. To compare: In World War II, the allies engaged in carpet bombing of cities filled with civilians that resulted in the total deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. I am not discussion the ethics of that (one can argue that without it, especially in the case of Japan, the war would last longer with far more deaths). HOWEVER...today tactics like that are not used. The amount of civilian killed countries like the United States, and the United Kingdom are very small compared to World War II and Korea. We do not engage in genocide and target civilians for death. We work hard to avoid it.

Therefor, even in you disagree with the war at a decision making level, one can proceed at the on the ground level with respect in what one is doing as a professional because one believes that one is still trying to do good.