subjunctivehistorian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
All this stuff about WW1 has got me thinking.. I know conscription is sometimes necessary (debatable) I think it's completely and utterly morally wrong. I mean, what you're doing is basically forcing someone to kill? Forcing them to fight against others, and to me this is just vile. War is a disgusting concept anyway, but to force people into it...

Thoughts?
0
reply
Old_Simon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
WW1 was mainly volunteers.
1
reply
subjunctivehistorian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Old_Simon)
WW1 was mainly volunteers.
I know, but the whole concept of war just got me thinking about conscription! what's your view, like the vietnam war, loads of US soldiers were forced into it, most of them barely out of their teens!
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
conscription is pretty much slavery so I would never support it.
I'd rather support the traditional idea that a country's leader should literally be on the battle field with his troops - e.g. tony blair being in the trenches in iraq.
that would at least have probably stopped iraq, at least, and would be a way to stop unnecessary wars
1
reply
subjunctivehistorian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
conscription is pretty much slavery so I would never support it.
I'd rather support the traditional idea that a country's leader should literally be on the battle field with his troops - e.g. tony blair being in the trenches in iraq.
that would at least have probably stopped iraq, at least, and would be a way to stop unnecessary wars
agree
1
reply
93jm
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
definitely not in peace time or most wars unless its like the county will be invaded or something then you might need it
0
reply
Olie
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
Yeah, I think only in the most desperate of situations (i.e. a world war with an extreme threat like the Nazis) is conscription a good thing, otherwise I would never support it.
0
reply
KickZionistsOut
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
No way they'll have me fighting in their wars. Haven't we lost enough people already? two ****ing world wars. They're pushing for a 3rd and so long as people allow themselves to be divide and ruled it will happen.
0
reply
Caedus
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
I do think that conscription is acceptable and, during wars and such, is required. If you enjoy the kind of freedom that we currently have, you must also be prepared to defend it.
1
reply
Mick.w
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by ZeniB)
All this stuff about WW1 has got me thinking.. I know conscription is sometimes necessary (debatable) I think it's completely and utterly morally wrong. I mean, what you're doing is basically forcing someone to kill? Forcing them to fight against others, and to me this is just vile. War is a disgusting concept anyway, but to force people into it...

Thoughts?
i think (when the nation is not at war) that conscription is actually quite a good thing.
i think it teaches
discipline
team working
pragmatism
logical thinking
critical thinking
resilience
commitment
camaraderie
problem solving
how to live in tidy clean environment
how to respect operations and co-ordinate.
how to look after one another.
how to adapt, improvise and overcome
how to fight
how to defend.

so theres lots of useful skills there.
i have a feeling that if everyone new those things there would be a lot more respect for each other and the environments we live in.

i don't think you would have such levels of antisocial behaviour and social deprivation as you do now.

i think if there was conscription the government would be a lot more careful with who they go to war with.

for example our attitude now is that we do not care about soldiers as they have signed up for their job. so when our government goes to war we are pretty lazy about resisting it. we march, sign petitions, change are avatar, #whatever, slacktivism basically.

but if conscription was in place. there would be a lot more resistance to the war.

i think people who had served in the army would be much less likely to drop out of uni or their jobs.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
Conscription in peace time is only of use if you believe achieving full employment is worth the cost to the taxpayer (one could only apply it to those unemployed for 12 months).

I'm mostly opposed to it. I'd rather buy more drones than pay for soldiers who don't want to be there.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
In a total war, it's necessary. In all other wars, it's a waste.


Having said that, there are a number of successful and flourishing societies that are still successful and flourishing despite national service/conscription still being in place. The two that spring to mind most are Singapore and Finland, but others exist.
0
reply
Doctor_Einstein
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
conscription is pretty much slavery so I would never support it.
I'd rather support the traditional idea that a country's leader should literally be on the battle field with his troops - e.g. tony blair being in the trenches in iraq.
that would at least have probably stopped iraq, at least, and would be a way to stop unnecessary wars
Don't you think it is poor strategy for the leaders of a country to be on the front line in war? Are you the type of person who tries to move the king to the front early in chess? You probably have noticed you don't win that often.
0
reply
Doctor_Einstein
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Caedus)
I do think that conscription is acceptable and, during wars and such, is required. If you enjoy the kind of freedom that we currently have, you must also be prepared to defend it.
Yes, and those who are prepared to defend it will sign up voluntarily. Conscription is about forcing those who do not think their country is worth defending to fight anyway, which I think is wrong.

If you cannot get enough people to voluntarily fight to defend the country, then clearly not enough people think the country is worth defending so probably the country isn't worth fighting for.
0
reply
Caedus
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
Yes, and those who are prepared to defend it will sign up voluntarily. Conscription is about forcing those who do not think their country is worth defending to fight anyway, which I think is wrong.

If you cannot get enough people to voluntarily fight to defend the country, then clearly not enough people think the country is worth defending so probably the country isn't worth fighting for.
Not true. There are a lot of people out there who enjoy freedom but are not willing to fight for it. Those people need to be conscripted. The alternative, of course, is prison.
0
reply
Doctor_Einstein
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Caedus)
Not true. There are a lot of people out there who enjoy freedom but are not willing to fight for it. Those people need to be conscripted.
No, if they are not willing to voluntarily fight for their freedom, then they don't deserve it. They shouldn't be forced to fight for their own freedom if they don't think it is worth fighting for.
0
reply
Caedus
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
No, if they are not willing to voluntarily fight for their freedom, then they don't deserve it. They shouldn't be forced to fight for their own freedom if they don't think it is worth fighting for.
There is an alternative. Prison, or a lack of freedom.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
Don't you think it is poor strategy for the leaders of a country to be on the front line in war? Are you the type of person who tries to move the king to the front early in chess? You probably have noticed you don't win that often.
ptff, let them assign a leader at home via parliament while they're the leader in the battlefront.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
ptff, let them assign a leader at home via parliament while they're the leader in the battlefront.
His point was, though, that you don't have a leader on the battle front. The Generals are always well back so they see everything
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by Drewski)
His point was, though, that you don't have a leader on the battle front. The Generals are always well back so they see everything
yeah, I know - I was saying that the leader who initiates a war in parliament should be a soldier so that they know how it feels, and so that they don't go to war over nothing like iraq, afghanistan, etc.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (150)
54.74%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (38)
13.87%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (31)
11.31%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (26)
9.49%
I haven't started researching yet (16)
5.84%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (13)
4.74%

Watched Threads

View All