It's a nice argument applied to Iraq, but would the Falklands be the Malvinas now if we'd had a conscript armed forces then? And would we have stuck it out in Northern Ireland?Litotes said:
It is a good point to make. Would we have stuck it out in Northern Ireland with conscripts? Even if we did not, would the end result be any different than it is today with a highly trained Army who did stick it out? The Terrorist will still would have won in either event. The terrorist now occupies a nice highly paid job and wears a suit just as he would have done had a conscript Army been less effective.Neuroleptic said:It's a nice argument applied to Iraq, but would the Falklands be the Malvinas now if we'd had a conscript armed forces then? And would we have stuck it out in Northern Ireland?Litotes said:
Besides which, we're all 'economic' conscripts anyway according to the author. Presumably unemployable elsewhere.
People do but aspirations and opportunities have changed for the better, most would say, from the 50-70s.Hairy_T_Towel_Holder said:That article was good reading. I myself have always been against conscription, however no matter what creed colour or sexuality you were you would have to go.
Dont you think this would bolster British society. It would help youngsters find respect in their own communities. It would bring communities together. It would help young people from being radicalised like our home grown terrorists.
Another point is how many people from ethnic minorities do you think would dodge the draft for whatever reason. How many scummer white kids would do exactly the same. Where would the human rights act stand on forced employment. I just dont think our government could do it. We dont live in the 50's /70's anymore. Unfortunatly for us we live in the Playstaion Consume Hedonistic generation where no one gives a damm.
Easy answer is no, of course not and we know the evidence supports a cases that Forces complaints have increased over the years as ex-soldiers have fallen out of the political system.Iolis said:I stand corrected over the gender of the author for which I am grateful.
It would be easy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conscription but I think the central issue is whether, by virtue of being a class of individual separated from society that the Army might more easilly be regarded as more readilly expendible than it would be if every eligible adult had a stake in serving in it?
Would it then be as carelessly treated and neglected as it is now if every mother's son and daughter were liable to be called upon to serve in it's ranks if the idea of civic duty of service was treated, as a concept as that which jury service is regarded?
Sorry, ORC, but I disagree with a few of your words (my bold). Whilst one dead or injured British soldier is one too many, our losses are tiny when compared with previous wars. Frankly, we kill and injure more personnel on the roads in a year than we lose to operations.OldRedCap said:Whilst we are not experiencing deaths in action on the same scale as America, our losses are significant. There is the allied factor regarding equipment shortages and unsuitability. With a volunteer Army there is the "consulation" of being able to say "He died doing his duty/what he loved best etc." (I don't see this as a consulation but then I have not lost any relative or friend under these circumstances).
With a conscripted force, this comforting cushion is removed. Likely result would be to increase civilian demonstrations, increase dissatisfaction at the Government's failure to properly fit-out, protect and care for injured and troops refusing to serve in operational areas/going awol anyway.
I served in a Army made up of conscripts and volunteers. It worked quite well but that was in a time when personal freedoms were less pronounced and rejection of service from NS was quite low. I would foresee a large rise in the "Hell No I won't Go" sort of action as in US Army and the SE Asia war.
Not give them the vote? I'm all for a true meritocracy with elements of democracy. Serve your country, get the vote. Minimum 2 years mil, 4 years civ (medical, teaching, public, security services).eveyuk said:And what would britain do with those who refuse to soldier?