Military Service

« “Hoodies”, Are they all so bad? | How can I kill....? »

Military Service

by DominicGee @ 2008-06-19 – 14:33:57

I was speaking to my lady friend yesterday, and she was telling me how while waiting for me in town she witnessed a group of Chavs/hoodies/whatevers bullying and tormenting a man. She said the man was clearly a "simpleton" or in someway challenged as his efforts to put them off were rather pathetic and he couldn't get his words out. She felt horrified that people could act in this way. She suggested military service for these offenders, or compulsory military service for everyone anyway, saying it gives people a place in society, a sense of discipline etc etc.

What do you guys think? Should young offenders be sent to the armed forces? Should we all do military service?
Options:
Tags:
- youth
- order
- law
- army
- crime
- hoodies
- punishment

54 Comments on Military Service

Hide subcomments

- boredrich
- 2008-06-19 @ 14:35:52
young offenders should go in to service maybe that would put a stop to the mayhem we currently have.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-19 @ 14:45:36
I think that was suggested once and the military weren't at all pleased...don't think they wanted an army with young hoodlums in it rebelling and causing havoc in their ranks...
- - DominicGee
  - 2008-06-19 @ 14:53:52
  Yes, I said that to her, but her reply was the army only waste its potential on fighting unpopular wars. If they took on offenders, they'd be doing a public service and save money on recruitment campaigns. I am aware that the army wants to run a well disciplined, prestigious and world renowned force. Plus, these guys aren't born hoodlums, the idea is that once in the army and trained up, they'll be instilled with a sense of self-worth, a strong work ethic and discipline. They needn't be nutters the whole time...
  I'd need to see how other countries with this policy do before making a decision. Just wondering if there are any ideological reasons for rejecting the proposal
  - - jenray ^Pro
    - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
    - 2008-06-19 @ 15:11:32
    War today is very different from the big ones in the past...now soldiers can be sent to fight in illegal wars like Iraq, and that would make a lot of young toughs sense that they're just becoming fodder if forced to join the army...can't see them knuckling down and becoming disciplined in order to die on some foreign field where they shouldn't be in the first place...it might help some find some sense of discipline in their lives, but I would be concerned whether in some cases, their earlier forms of rebellion wouldn't return if they found themselves in a war situation, and whether they wouldn't return to their previous aggression against the enemy in an indisciplined way...soldiers have to be disciplined killers and that takes time and a great deal of energy to learn to control...some young hoodlums may simply find it thrilling...unfortunately...
    - - technomist
      - 2008-06-19 @ 15:18:50
      Some of these yobs should go straight into gaol, but a fair number of these kids actually have potential but are in with the wrong crowd and have nowhere to take it. I don't think it would suit everyone, or every crime, but it might be an idea to make being interviewed about joining up an option that could be offered when magistrates consider 'community service' and a fine that will never be payed.
      
      If those who found it thrilling joined up as a career, they would at least have an aim in life and be subject to a lot more supervision than they get right now.
      - DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 15:30:29
        
        That is a good point. I don't think it's as simple as simply saying "throw them in the army". It is a complex issue, but this could be part of the answer.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 15:44:49
        
        Just not sure whether the army should be made responsible for their rehabilitation, or whether it's right to coerce a youngster into joining up as an alternative to community service or a fine...seems excessive to me if the original misdemeanor only deserved community service or a fine...with regard to those who may find killing a thrill, I would have thought a psychological profile prior to their enforced enlistment would give the army some idea of why they should think long and hard about accepting such an individual...mostly because killing that induces a thrill is hardly healthy for any soldier, and I would have thought most youngsters who join for good reasons would find it traumatic rather than thrilling, which would be a healthy reaction...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 15:55:35
        
        You're right, I would not suggest murderers, rapists and organised crime members being made to join, that WOULD be a bad idea.
        I am still unsure on the subject, wanted to hear what you guys said.
        I understand that you think that the army is not responsible for their rehabilitation, but - What is the army being used for at the moment? Is there something more worthwhile? Let me be clear that I am not knocking the army, I've served my time in it as a private too and appreciated it, but what with the unpopularity of the war, couldn't it be put to better use?
        Also why shouldn't the army be used for rehabilitation? If they are not doing it it only means some other sorry sod in a community centre is doing it instead, and they're not exactly producing results.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:14:21
        
        Well, I suppose it depends how you regard the armed services...they're were essentially formed to defend the country from invasion by hostile forces...the fact that they're now being sent abroad to fight wars that are for the protection of oil supplies mainly is a misuse of their purpose, and also the suggestion that they are somehow protecting us from terrorists...in my opinion, they are probably creating more than they are stopping just by being where they are not wanted...those who enlist freely are trained, it is hoped, by individuals with the intention of having an efficient fighting force on hand whenever it is needed...I suppose adding a few miscreants to the numbers wouldn't be too much to ask, but how many is the question?...there are rather a lot of young ones going off the rails at the moment...having said that...if the recruiting of regular youngsters tails off, they may be obliged to consider taking these other young ones just to keep the numbers up...from what the armed forces' reps are saying, they're stretched now to breaking point with their forces being in several different places around the world at the same time...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:20:44
        
        Yeah, the army is stretched, but the principle idea behind such a scheme is of course to act a a deterrent to anti-social behaviour. If it doesn't produce a significant dip in figures then I don't see the point. If it does act as a deterrent than crime stats should go down and the burden on the army would be reduced.
        I disagree with the view that the army exists to protect us though, I think that is a modern idea. Paid armies have always existed to fight for some entity's interests, whether that be a king, emperor or other employer. Fighting to protect your homeland is quite different and soldiers are not necessarily paid, as they are doing what they deem necessary. it's a side point however, and has entered into a grey area now. But when people say 'for queen and country' that's exactly who they're fighting for. A mercenary is the oldest type of soldier, not a volunteer.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:33:42
        
        The USA has topped up its forces in Iraq with a private mercenary army so nothing unusual there, but certainly not recommended if things are to remain under the control of the legitimate armed forces...in the past from kings to popes, mercenary armies were there for hire, and were frequently used, but that began to be reduced when standing armies for each country came into existence mainly as defence forces protecting the country with paid conscripts and their everyday needs met...I think a much better way of having an army than an ill- disciplined rabble ready to go out and kill for money and loot...unfortunately, it didn't wipe them out and they are responsible for some appalling atrocities wherever they've been sent...I think civilized societies should have made their existence untenable, but seems we still have need of them on occasions...
        I have to ask here...if you don't agree that the armed service exist to protect us, why do they exist at all?
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:48:05
        
        I do think they protect us - it is what we expect them to do and from our point of view it is their first priority. However standing armies were created to protect not us but a person's interests, whether that be their land (which we also share) or interests abroad, such as colonization, resources protection and gaining future interests such as oil.
        Britain was one of the first to support a standing army and that was created by Oliver Cromwell following a civil war and a tenuous position in Europe and in England. The army was created to protect the interests of his government, not the citizens of the country. If people are drafted in from all over the country they are clearly not there to protect their homeland, they are there to earn a living. Other examples of the Army protecting 'interests' are US-Vietnam, US-Iraq, Russia-Afganistan, British Empire-Boers (pretty much every war that hasn't been fought on our shores, so all of them since 1066). It's one of my favourite quotes from Disraeli "The British Empire does not have friends, only interests." That remains true today as ever.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 17:07:39
        
        So our armed forces are there to protect the government of the day's interests mainly abroad now and in the past...hmmm...so fighting to protect Queen and country is a myth? Well, in that case, I suggest we send every young miscreant who breaks the Law into them and let them do their thing with them, whether they agree or not, because on these grounds, they're a huge drain on our country's finances and are, more or less, hired armed forces and not far off mercenaries...I wonder how they see themselves...would have thought a lot differently...sorry, being flippant I know, but I wonder how many people in this country see our armed forces in this light...I would have thought not many...I hate gung ho patriotism, but I do think we should think very carefully where we're sending our armed forces and whether the battles they're going to fight on our behalf are actually our wars and not somebody else's who are going to benefit far more than we are in the end...throwing away lives is too high a price to pay for involvement in conflicts that are barely legitimate and sometimes downright illegitimate...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 17:19:36
        
        The way I see it, being a soldier in the army is something to be proud of. It's a good job which requires hard work, diligence and a certain amount of skill (despite the impression given in the media). You can act as ambassadors of your country and advance it's interests such as freedom and democracy. But I think the vast majority of soldiers realize that they are not taking part in a massive 'good vs evil' conflict. They treat it as a job, and you can hear that testimony whenever they or their family are interviewed on TV.
        There are situations when that is different, such as WW2 when there was a definite evil ideology that was trying to be defeated. Soldiers nowadays are not 'heroes' of their country as such, but heroes of their compatriots, their regiment, their unit etc and of the people whose lives they saved. They are heroes because of the sacrifice they made for those in their unit, the sacrifice was not made for the country. So yes, I think that 'Queen and Country' is a myth, created by recruiters during our more overtly imperialistic history, and at one point I am sure people believed in the sentiment.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 18:37:49
        
        Can't dispute your interpretation...it sounds accurate in today's world...I think though we've veered off the original subject about young offenders being forcibly enlisted in the armed forces...LOL...I think you've probably covered about as much as can be said about it in response to my answers so I think this discussion is nearing an end now...though not entirely sure whether the conclusion was that it was the right thing to do or not...interesting discussion nonetheless....
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-20 @ 08:57:48
        
        thanks for taking part
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        technomist
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:26:27
        
        One of the big secrets about war is that for many of the participants it is a lot more fun than they like to let on. This does not make them all psychopaths (possibly only 1% of soldiers could be clinically diagnosed as that).
        
        Notwithstanding all the publicity about veterans' mental problems adjusting after returning from modern wars and what is known about PTSD and combat experience, it is still the case that most people who have been engaged in combat do not find the experience traumatizing and do not exhibit symptoms which would come within the accepted WHO definitions of the diagnosis. That is not to belittle those who do suffer such difficulties, but it needs to be placed in proportion and context. For many young men, the military life is still the making of them.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:41:07
        
        I'm sure it is...and having watched a prog interviewing USA soldiers both male and female, it was good to see how level headed and nice they were...two of them died later while the prog was being made, which really saddened me...hmmm...such a waste of life...and yes, I'm also sure that not all soldiers suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, but I'm certain that the first kill must affect them all as it has to be a milestone in their lives as soldiers...I think the most traumatic thing for them all must be what they witness amongst the people of Iraq in particular, and their deaths especially the children's...that seems to have a profound effect upon quite a few of the soldiers, not the actual killing of those attacking them...these are after all pretty young people and seeing men, women and children killed in terrible ways must have a lasting effect upon them...if their letters home are anything to go by there's a great deal of despair and disillusionment...not to mention the deaths around them of their own friends and colleagues...war is ugly and brutal, and human beings weren't made to go and witness the slaughter of their fellow human beings or to kill others either....it has to be traumatic on all of them whatever you say...some just show it more I think...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 17:09:36
        
        Joining the army does not necessarily mean being given a gun however. Pretty much every proffession that exists in civilian life is reflected in the army. In the same way becoming a professional footballer does not necessarily mean that you become addicted to cocaine... ha ha.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
    - - DominicGee
      - 2008-06-19 @ 15:29:05
      That's presuming that they'd be front-line infantry. The vast majority of soldiers in the army are not 'fighters' and never get to fire a shot in anger. Also, this is not simply a suggestion that gets rid of the problem easily: their progress can be monitored etc and, as with other members in the army, a suitable job can be found. They can be trained to be technicians, mechanics, clerks, labourers, IT technicians etc. Each case I suppose could be taken individually. How many crimes are committed by youths are a merely bored, neglected, maligned or unemployable?
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 15:51:38
        
        That could be an answer...don't let enforced recruits go to the front...that might well work...and they'd get training in a career they could use when their enlistment finishes...but it would have to be up to the armed forces to decide whether they wanted to take on such a responsibility...these youngsters would or could be very disruptive for several months until they settled down...some of them may find it to their advantage to settle down and learn, but others may just grow ever more resentful that they've been forced into the armed forces against their will...I know this has come up before, but don't know what happened when first mooted....think the armed services rejected it if I remember correctly...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        DominicGee
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:02:53
        
        Yes, the army would have to be willing I suppose, but also that it cannot think of itself as a separate entity from society. It could also have a role to play in the betterment of our society rather than just protecting it. Money would also be an issue, but hopefully that money can be transfered from the prison system.
        
        i wonder if the Aussies would have a problem if we started sending them there again? ahahaha. Actually, Australia is a shining example of how convicts are often just the product of their environment - it is one of the 'success' stories of recent times, considering how it started.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:21:28
        
        True, it could have role to play but, right at this moment in time, its personnel are scattered across the world dying and fighting for very dubious purposes...in a time of peace when it has nowhere to fight or to act as peace keepers elsewhere, it could consider other roles, but it takes time and money to train recruits, and money is already stretched to the point where our soldiers are having to pay for their own equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan and lack adequate protection in their transport as well, in spite of frequent denials by ministers in the government that this is the case....
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
    - - HektorRevisited
      - http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
      - 2008-06-19 @ 15:48:39
      On what basis is the war in Iraq illegal in your view?
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-19 @ 16:02:41
        
        Was set up to happen regardless of whether the UN was in agreement with it, we were taken into it on false information and it was not our war...it was Bush's cronies war backed by Israel who just wanted Saddam removed because a threat to it...Blair was given the option of staying out of it if it was going to cause problems for him here in the UK, and he decided that he was going to enter it and set about manipulating Parliament into voting for it...experts on the Middle East warned him, it was a minefield, but all he could say in response was 'Saddam is evil, isn't he?'!! The man was a first class idiot...and dangerous with it...our soldiers out there have paid a very big price for his blind following of Bush...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 09:23:58
        
        But the coalition were acting on the basis of existing UN resolutions, which had not been repealled or revoked by the UN and which were, therefore, still valid. Just because people don't agree with a war does not make it per se illegal.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 10:18:13
        
        I'm not sure there are many people who will agree that the Iraq war was legal...those involved manipulated the UN existing resolutions to claim legitimacy but the UN did not sanction it...the USA intended always to go into Iraq regardless of whether the UN sanctioned it or not, but, for Blair, he wanted the war to be legal, so tried hard to get the UN to agree to the invasion, which he failed to do...by then he couldn't withdraw his assurance to Bush that he would join him...Hans Bliks kept saying there were no weapons of mass destruction but the USA and the UK were far beyond listening to him, in fact, he was probably instrumental in failing to get the war sanctioned by the UK...as it turned out, he was right...the USA and the UK were both completely wrong...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 10:19:32
        
        Sorry, meant to say at the end 'failing to get the war sanctioned by the UN...not the UK...darn typos...LOL
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 11:32:09
        
        The British Government (not just former PM Tony Blair (remember the doctrine of collective responsibility)), as I understand it, would have preferred to have a further resolution following Resolution 1441. This was for political rather than legal reasons, however.
        
        The fact that a further resolution was not obtained does not make the war in Iraq illegal: (a) Resolution 1441 (giving a final chance to comply with previous resolutions) was passed unanimously; (b) the war was based on Res.1441 and existing Resolutions which sanctioned continuing military action following the end of the first Iraq war in 1991 (see Resolution 678, for instance).
        
        So, contrary to your contention, the UN did sanction the war - if it was the UN's intention that another resolution following 1441 be required for action, resolution 1441 would have so stated.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 12:40:10
        
        Hmmm...twists and turns, twists and turns...so entering a war on an outright lie makes it legitimate does it...not in my books I'm afraid regardless of whether the UN resolution 678 allowed it to continue on from the first invasion?? I wonder whose arms were twisted in the UN to get that clause included...sorry, Hektor, perhaps you're right about Resolution 1441, but the grounds for going in again were not sound and doctored to make things look far far worse than they actually were...for me, that was totally unacceptable and made the second incursion completely out of order...I suppose now Bush intends to bomb Iran before his term of office is over that will also be sanctioned by Resolution 1441...bad, bad business all round...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 14:40:58
        
        You said that the war was "illegal" I have sought to show you that there were, in fact, legal grounds for going to war. Turning quickly to your points:
        
        * Resolution 678 was a resolution adopted after the end of the first Iraq war and related to the ceasefire conditions and the consequences of breaking them. These were broken on numerous occasions since 1991 and, from time to time, military action (in the form of air strikes) was taken against Iraq.
        
        * I think you have an issue with the politics of the build up to the war in Iraq, rather than the legal arguments. Dossiers etc. were part of that build-up but please remember that the Iraqi regime was flouting UN sanctions for over a decade before - should this be allowed to continue? What would the UN become if its resolutions were all but toothless?
        
        * Resolution 1441 relates to Iraq and could not be used in relation to Iran. Any action against Iran would have to be based upon a UN resolution (I am not aware of any current UN resolutions that speak of "serious consequences" with respect to Iran's non-compliance with weapons inspectors etc., but if there is one, that could be the basis of legal argument in favour of action).
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 15:49:12
        
        Perhaps you're correct in asserting that my grounds for the illegality of the war were the dossiers presented as proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us...the complexity of resolutions are not fully understood by most people, and it seems I am included, and I'm very willing to concede that, but Hans Bliks consistently pointed out that there were no more weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq as he had gone through the entire country with a fine tooth comb and none had come to light...that was what he was sent out there for and his report came back that, at the current time, no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq...It may have flouted the ceasefire but these were dealt with by numerous air strikes but the actual reason for going into Iraq was not proven to anybody's satisfaction and proved completely wrong...Saddam has been overthrown and executed and Iraq is now one hell of a mess with little or no improvements in the lives of ordinary Iraqis, and the death toll of Iraqis since the war has been catastrophic...their world has collapsed into warring factions and the USA efforts to rebuild it has resulted in the biggest war profiteering in the history of warfare...some 23 billion dollars has been stolen through seriously bad mismanagement and daylight robbery by companies and individuals, many connected to Bush's government...including the Minister of Defence in the Iraqi government who disappeared having stolen billions....With regard to Iran, Bush is warning that if they don't cease their nuclear program, the only option will be to destroy them...the hypocrisy of the whole affair is mind boggling with Israel holding its own stockpile while denying it has any, and several other countries now becoming nuclear powers as well...Iran has stated that it's use of nuclear power is for peaceful purposes, but it is mainly the Israelis who refuse to believe this, and are pushing for their nuclear sites to be destroyed because they fear Iran acquiring such weapons and, perhaps, one day using them against Israel...this is madness and paranoia in the extreme...I believe Iran is mainly composed of people under 21 years of age...if their country is bombed, they will obviously retaliate and then what happens? We go in and slaughter a country full of youngsters? Damn, the insanity of the situation cannot be allowed to continue without sane people standing up and saying enough is enough...As far as I can see looking back at our history, war has achieved nothing but death and chaos, and will continue to do so as long as we choose to take that route to resolve conflicts between countries...it's a road to nowhere but eventual nuclear war, and that will bring our whole earth to its knees and human beings to death and destruction never before witnessed by any other human beings in our long history...I want to stop war as a means of settling conflicts once and for all, but it seems with power mad men ruling our world at present, that is a very forlorn hope...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 16:08:16
        
        The point is that the Iraqi regime were not forthcoming with information when it came to the inspectors, they had breached resolutions and flouted the ceasefire. For the good of the UN, the war was prosecuted. I have issues with what has happened since the overthrow of the regime (the dismantling of certain state agencies (army, police etc.) was crazy). Some of the generals involved had clearly not studied Sun Tzu's Art of War.
        
        Israel has every right to have nuclear weapons (if it does, indeed, have them) when its neighbours have at one time or another attacked the country individually or simultaneously. It would be crazy for a country not to want to defend itself with such hostile neighbours.
        
        If Iran's nuclear programme is purely civilian in nature, I'm Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. Are you convinced that Iran wants a nuclear programme because it is concerned about global warming for instance or that it wants to reduce its reliance on oil?
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 16:51:33
        
        hmmm, clearly you are pro the war, while I'm clearly anti it...I don't actually think there's anywhere where we might meet in the middle...I won't start here on the matter of Israel, because I've got a feeling we would strongly disagree on that subject as well...it has been covered a lot in my Armchair Revolutionaries group so won't start another debate here...whatever you believe is Iran's intentions, no country has a right to decide to bomb the hell out of it just because it can't get its own way in negotiations...let all the nuclear powers currently holding them disarm then go and tell Iraq not to pursue nuclear weapons, which it keeps saying it isn't going to...but it damned well will if we keep on telling it not to!! Why have we so little respect for some countries' assurances, when we're perfectly happy to lie through our teeth to our allies and other countries if it's in our best interests to do so...barbarism is creeping in again slowly but surely and it's provoked by the so called civilized countries behaving barbarically in return...do we truly believe here in the West that we can control the Middle East by force, because that is what it will take - none of the countries there are going to lie down and accept domination by mainly the USA, and that can only lead to almost non stop conflict until something dreadful happens...it's like a volcano...plug one hole that threatens to erupt...like Iran's nuclear program, and another larger hole will open up elsewhere or around it to relieve the pressure...in the end the whole area will explode and heaven knows where that will take us....
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 17:38:33
        
        I'm not suggesting Isreal bomb Iranian nuclear installations because it can't get its own way in negotiations, I am suggesting that Israel bomb Iranian nuclear installations, because it is in Israel's strategic interests to do so. Just as they bombed Iraqi nuclear installations in the 1980s, they should do so now.
        
        If, as you contend, the whole region is going to explode, it's much better for it to happen when Iran is not a nuclear power.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 18:48:27
        
        Ahh...I can't debate with you on this...we are in complete disagreement and there's nothing I can say that is going to change you mind on this matter, so I will have to leave you with your views, and retain mine...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-23 @ 09:06:21
        
        Jenray, it was a pleasure discussing this with you, though.
        all the best.
        Hektor
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-23 @ 10:45:02
        
        Well as with war, when both sides feel so strongly and they're evenly matched in strength, further battles become self-defeating...it's wise to withdraw and agree to differ...all the best to you too, Hektor...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-06-20 @ 17:04:16
        
        Iran has the youngest population in the world, 46% are under the age of 15!! Are we really going to start a war with a country predominantly full of children?
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        HektorRevisited
        
        http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
        
        2008-06-20 @ 17:31:24
        
        I am not suggesting that the US, Israel or the "West" start a war with Iran, I think Iran's nuclear installations should be bombed and destroyed, however.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- LandersUK ^Pro
- 2008-06-19 @ 15:29:16
Yes, bring back military service!
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- joebangles
- 2008-06-19 @ 15:36:12
I fully support that idea Dominic with slight changes. I agree, army type training in discipline and learning a trade, but, no training in the use of arms.

The ideal solution would be that if young men attaining the age of eighteen and without full time employment were drafted in to a scheme such as that and received the first two years of apprenticeship in a trade.

Of course the snag is, that there must be jobs available for them to take up on leaving education and if that was the position at present these young men would have a different attitude to life with a few bob of their own earnings in their pockets allowing them to do something other than hang around the streets causing trouble.
- - DominicGee
  - 2008-06-19 @ 15:44:00
  That's sort of what I was saying before. Hopefully the following should happen anyway; either the offender stays on in the army anyway, which after 3 or so years is a likely eventuality. It would also act a deterrent to crime for those who don't want to join, thus reducing the burden on prisons and the army. It could encourage them to get a job as going to the army could be a very real threat.
  
  However, I am not sure I agree with conscripting them just for not having a job. I think that would create a false economy - the army would have many more soldiers than it would need or afford.
  
  I'd also be interested in how the army (or navy) would view the idea.
  
  Were you in the military yourself? Has this had a bearing on your answer?
  - - technomist
    - 2008-06-19 @ 16:34:59
    I suspect most professional soldiers in the UK would be opposed to conscription in practice. They want people who have some sort of motivation to be there.
    
    The armed forces can train people, but they still want to be able to select their intakes and it is the case that some people just are not suitable. They do not like drug takers, for instance. Many military jobs require an ability to work with computers and accept responsibility for complex and costly equipment, so total dunderheads aren't that much use.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- DominicGee
- 2008-06-19 @ 16:59:02
For anyone who's interested, he's some opinions taken from a BBC forum discussing the same topic. The question is: Should Convicts Join the Army?

As an ex-con myself I would have relished the opportunity to have a go at the army life. The thing I lacked in many ways was purpose and discipline. As it is I have kept it at the one visit as a result of becoming a Christian which gave me the purpose and discipline that I needed not to mention the love and warmth that had been missing that Otto W from Germany pointed out.
Paul, England

In a time when Army recruitment personnel are complaining that the quality of keen volunteers is so poor that the ones that don't get turned down are subject to extra (cost) training just to bring them up to basic standards before real training can start, it would seem a pointless exercise trying to train unmotivated conscripts who are only there to avoid some form of punishment. I feel especially sorry for the instructors who will have to sort the mess out.
Graeme, England

Though no longer resident in the UK, I am a former member of the Royal Air Force, so feel entitled to express my view. Sane sensible people realise that no country has enough prisons to contain the miscreants of society. Surely the aim should be to assist in the rehabilitation of criminals not to take the opportunity to exact vengeance.
Of course, some criminals are so deranged that society is entitled to protect itself from them by locking them away, but those who are recoverable must be helped in every way to return to normal life. Where can this be better achieved than in the controlled and disciplined milieu that the army can provide?
Many people must remember their service in the armed forces with gratitude and wonder what would have become of them if the opportunity to move their lives in the right direction had not been available.
S. Marrow, Canada

I served for 22 years after being placed on probation as a 15 year old, and believe the Army helped me sort out my life. If the recruits are accepted without their criminal record being known to their peers, and provided they accept the normal rules of service, I believe that the proposed system may be of advantage to the Services and those wishing to join.
Paul Neal, UK

What is the point of the careful recruiting if we are going to be forced to fight alongside convicts? If this goes ahead I shall have to consider my own position in the Army very carefully.
Cpl Neill Wood, UK

As a retired British Army officer I believe that this is a worthy idea. A key point always to remember is that convicts are neither to be conscripted nor coerced into military service as was the case in earlier times. I see little difference between recruiting someone who has served time for relatively minor civilian criminal offences and allowing the soldier guilty of a serious transgression of military law or Queen's Regulations to return to the Colours after imprisonment in the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester. Indeed my personal experience of serving on Court Martials and visiting inmates at Colchester suggests that the Army has a most enlightened attitude to the rehabilitation of offenders. If I ever fell foul of the law, I hope that I would be given a second chance.
Major (Retired) Chris Klein, UK

Absolutely not. Can you imagine sleeping next to a criminal who might rob or harm you at any time? One who has already been convicted of some crime? Thanks, but no thanks to criminals in the armed service. That can only be an idea from someone who has never served in the military. I have.
Ed Sparks, ISA

Yeah, sure! Convicts are what made the Serbian Armed Forces the venerable institution it is today.
Patrick E. Cooley, Canada

No. They should go into politics where they will have less opportunity to corrupt others.
Craig Jimmink, United States

Interesting viewpoints, all of you. However, I am surprised that none of you brought up the idea of creating an extension to the UK Army: an "Environmental Army" where the young offenders are recruited for two years (similar to America's Peace Corps) whereby they are sent to various areas in the UK/Europe to clean the rivers, lakes and waterways of trash and other debris. The hard work and discipline of the Army are instilled in the young men and women, while cleaning the waterways of trash promotes a healthier environment for all.
As many of these post-prisoners will be on the dole or having kids and going to DHSS for handouts, why not pay them to clean up their act and to clean up the country while they're at it? Everyone wins: the UK will become an employer and the ex-prisoners will become hard working citizens expected to perform a regular job in exchange for a paycheque. Best of all, the UK will become once again the Jewel of Europe with her shining rivers and crystal clear lakes
Brandi, USA

***

Ok that's enough, I tried to find the good ones, though there are a few. I doubt many, if any of you will read all this, but I find it interesting, especially the differeing views WITHIN the army.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- SeasideMan ^Pro
- 2008-06-19 @ 20:56:09
Absolutely NOT. I have a very close relative who was driven mental by his years in the army. His suicide attempt as a result of PTSD from Iraq almost succeeded and several years on he is still on anti-depressants. He both saw and did things in that war (and in prior conflicts going back 20 years) that are so utterly hideous, disgusting and inhuman that I shan't be repeating them here. Those things were so bad that he would rather take his own life than think about them: that's how bad they were.

Taking miscreants from the streets and subjecting them to this is not any sort of an answer. Everyone in the army MUST be a volunteer. And I can guarantee that a 5-minute chat with my cousin would change the mind of any potential volunteer. If you join the army, you run the risk of being put in a terrible living hell and made to do both witness and do the most awful things that people are capable of doing.

Tom.
- - DominicGee
  - 2008-06-20 @ 08:52:20
  I can see how that would affect your opinion. What happened to him sounds horrible.
  You say the army must be made up of volunteers - what if it was like in America where convicted criminals were given a choice, join up or go to prison? From what I've heard prisons can be pretty nasty places too, especially for young men and who 60% of the time end up re-offending.
  
  Incidentally, why do you say it should be volunteers only? I think this is quite a strong argument against the idea.
  - - SeasideMan ^Pro
    - 2008-06-20 @ 09:29:05
    Forcing people to risk life or madness seems morally unjustifiable to me. That's why it has to be volunteers.
    
    People are put in prison as punishment. Letting them out evenif into the army ends that punishment prematurely. I wouldn't support that.
    
    Tom.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- tylluanpenry ^Pro
- 2008-06-19 @ 23:04:19
In ancient civilisations the 'citizen army' ensured that war was not undertaken lightly since everyone had a vested interest in ensuring their nearest and dearest didn't get killed. Of course nowadays politicians send other people's sons, fathers, husbands etc to fight and die... no wonder they are more gung ho about it.

On a more sombre note... my aunt had a boyfriend who was very sweet on her, many years ago, back in the 1930's. He got into trouble for scrumping apples and then for breaking a street lamp and was transported to Canada. He returned from that just in time to be conscripted into the Army for WW2 and was blown to bits in North Africa.

At the time, people didn't think there was anything particularly unfair about his treatment, either.
- - DominicGee
  - 2008-06-20 @ 08:58:37
  You're right about the historical thing, but now that we've had a standing army for such a long time, fighting is not necessarily part of the job description of being a soldier.
  The last time a king of England led an army into battle was George II in 1789, so I get your point. The politician's distance form the fighting makes them more complacent.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- lostjohnny
- http://lostjohnnyparadox.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-20 @ 15:19:21
National Service works well in other countries even if it was only for 6 months it would help
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- grumpus ^Pro
- http://grumpus.blog.co.uk
- 2008-06-20 @ 18:19:22
I read all of the above comments with interest, except for the rather tedious diversion into the pointless rant about the illegality of the Iraq war.
I was a conscripted National Serviceman between 1957 and 1959 and spent the first year as a Drill and Weapon Training Instructor. Every six weeks I was put in charge of a squad of 14 new young conscripts, usually aged between 17 and 21.
I collected them from the station on arrival and from that point on I was with them 24/7 for the duration.
These boys came from all walks of life and from all over the UK. They were NOT volunteers, and some had to leave good jobs, wives and children, to join the forces for two years on a starting pay of about 30 shillings a week. Many were a long way from home.
They were simply sent their call-up papers when their turn came. They were allocated a service, Army, Navy or Air Force, and a corps or regiment etc., and without question they made their way to their nominated Training Establishment. They had little choice in the matter. Only 12 years after the end of WW2, conscription was necessary to maintain the fragile peace and the culture among the civilian population was that all young men would do their part when called.
Each squad that arrived was made up of all types from decent young men, through the somewhat lazy and clumsy, to the long-haired, cocky and deliberately disruptive ne'er-do-wells. It was my job, along with other NCOs, to turn them into soldiers!
We worked them hard round the clock. Discipline was strict and punishments were sometimes cruel but effective. We had few failures. At the end of a gruelling six weeks 99.9% passed out as smart, disciplined, self-reliant soldiers, who had become a team, working together, supporting each other, and ready to face whatever the Army or eventually civilian life was to throw at them.
So my view is that some of todays young hooligans should be sentenced to a period of time from say 3 months to a number of years, dependent on their offence, in a specially set-up "military-style" organization. They would receive a six week intensive, general, highly disciplined training period. After which they would be put to supervised work on various community projects as teams. If any individual failed to do his share, the whole team would be punished!
It worked a treat in my day. Many of the young men I pushed through Army basic training, made a point of thanking me afterwards for giving them self-respect, self-confidence and dignity.
Such things are so often lacking in todays youngsters.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-23 @ 12:30:11
Grumpus, I resent strongly your reference to Hektor and my discussion about the Iraq war as a rant. It's true it was a divergence from the question asked, but, as we were discussing enlisting miscreants in the army, the consequence of that could be that they find themselves involved in our current wars, so not entirely irrelevant. Hitler, Mussolini and Mugabe as examples ranted and rant in the case of the last example...I do not, I state my views politely and Hektor and I strongly disagreed on the subject under discussion but we did not resort to rudeness...you are perfectly entitled to put your own views across here, but, please refrain from insulting other points of view...
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Antireptilian
- 2008-07-01 @ 15:36:03
You will get your question answered soon enough. Military conscription screws up more people than it "fixes". Ask any South African male aged 35 plus.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

54 Comments on Military Service

Leave a comment (Login)