04-15-2007, 06:55 PM

This story here has had me laughing for the last fifteen minutes.

04-15-2007, 07:31 PM

Does the German army stock diapers? :dummy:

04-15-2007, 07:34 PM

I can't decide which is worse. The fact they sent a draft notice to a baby or the fact that they even have a draft in Germany....

04-15-2007, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by baggss

I can't decide which is worse. The fact they sent a draft notice to a baby or the fact that they even have a draft in Germany....

1. Service in the armed forces is required of all males in Germany. In other words, not only do they have a draft, but a majority of their soldiers are conscripted.

2. Why is that bad? Most armies in Europe have the same system.


In any case, I would find the article MORE (cough) funny if such things didn't happen in all bureaucracies...including ours. Still, it is pretty humorous.

04-15-2007, 10:22 PM

I find the concept of conscription under the European family of socialist systems to be rather silly. Then again, maybe I shouldn't, come to think of it. I would have figured that they would have moved to a more "humane" and "fair" voluntary system, but I'm not sure that would work for them.

04-15-2007, 10:50 PM

All young women in Israel has to do mandatory guard duties. I don't know if it is similar to our National Guard.

04-15-2007, 10:58 PM

Yes, but it is obvious WHY it is necessary in a county like Israel.

04-16-2007, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by baggss

I find the concept of conscription under the European family of socialist systems to be rather silly. Then again, maybe I shouldn't, come to think of it. I would have figured that they would have moved to a more "humane" and "fair" voluntary system, but I'm not sure that would work for them.

I find it to be a great idea. Every person (male and female) should be required to serve for a set period of time after wither turning 18 or graduating high school...whichever comes first.

Imagine. Wars would be thought of differently when everyone has a high stake in it. It would promote physical fitness. It would create a stronger sense of nationalism. The list goes on...

04-16-2007, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by cheesybanana

I find it to be a great idea. Every person (male and female) should be required to serve for a set period of time after wither turning 18 or graduating high school...whichever comes first.

Imagine. Wars would be thought of differently when everyone has a high stake in it. It would promote physical fitness. It would create a stronger sense of nationalism. The list goes on...

I agree with the last part.

04-16-2007, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by cheesybanana

Imagine. Wars would be thought of differently when everyone has a high stake in it. It would promote physical fitness. It would create a stronger sense of nationalism. The list goes on...

At the beginning of WWI and WWII the Germans, French, Italians, Brits, Japanese and the US (to name just a few) had conscription based militaries. How much differently did they think about war? A strong sense of "Nationalism" was a huge contributing factor in both wars. You might want to study some history here...

I don't disagree with that it may be a good idea, but forcing people into doing things they don't want to do often has a huge negative downside.

I would like to see some sort of National service in the US, not necessarily limited to only Military Service, though.

Just for my own edification, may enquire as to your age? You don't list it in your profile.

04-16-2007, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by baggss

At the beginning of WWI and WWII the Germans, French, Italians, Brits, Japanese and the US (to name just a few) had conscription based militaries. How much differently did they think about war? A strong sense of "Nationalism" was a huge contributing factor in both wars. You might want to study some history here...

I don't disagree with that it may be a good idea, but forcing people into doing things they don't want to do often has a huge negative downside.

I would like to see some sort of National service in the US, not necessarily limited to only Military Service, though.

Just for my own edification, may enquire as to your age? You don't list it in your profile.

WWI and WWII were justifiable wars and were seen as such throughout the wars. It certainly would not prevent wars, but questionable wars would not be as common as they are today. At least I would like to think people would take a more active stance on issues...I'm probably being an idealist though.

And you are right about nationalism. It has caused many conflicts...but there were many other factors in WWI and WWII, including land disputes and world depression. Nationalism itself would not be able to start a war in today's world due to the global reaction.

Forcing people to do things they do not want to do WOULD have it's negative effects. A 'national service' would be better than straight military service and would help alleviate some of those negative effects. Plus, it would create a larger pool of people to draw upon when national disasters occur (Katrina).

Bah...I am having trouble thinking right now for some reason. I have been typing this **** reply for about 15 minutes.

Oh...and I am 18.

04-16-2007, 12:54 AM

I had planned to join the Air Force (I'd hoped for a position in communications) when I was eighteen. This ended up being absolutely forbidden by my dad. I guess it was due to his experience in the Air Force?!

04-16-2007, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by cheesybanana

WWI and WWII were justifiable wars and were seen as such throughout the wars. It certainly would not prevent wars, but questionable wars would not be as common as they are today. At least I would like to think people would take a more active stance on issues...I'm probably being an idealist though.

So it was justifiable for the Germans to invade France and Russia in both wars? It was justifiable for the Japanese to invade China and slaughter millions? The wars were seen as justifiable in the west for a variety of reasons, but they were seen as justifiable by the people on the other side too. Who says what is justifiable? Would the UN making a massive move in Daifure be justifiable, even though UN flagged soldiers would die and innocent civilians would be hurt because of it? If Nazi Germany had won WWII, would we still see our actions in WWII as justifiable? Would they?

Were the Napoleanic wars justifiable from either sides perspective? How about the Franco-Prussian War? Korea? Vietnam? All of these involved conscription and National Pride to some extent or the other. I obviously disagree with your opinion of conscription, but not completely. I don't think conscription would make any difference in deciding on conflicts, historically it never has and that is unlikely to change. Otherwise I actually agree with you on it's benefits to a country and a society.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here, but one must not view history through Rose colored glasses. If you do, you miss the real lessons.

iKitten, that's too bad. Military service, especially voluntary, can be good for a person and show them things about themselves they may never otherwise learn.

04-16-2007, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by baggss

So it was justifiable for the Germans to invade France and Russia in both wars? It was justifiable for the Japanese to invade China and slaughter millions? The wars were seen as justifiable in the west for a variety of reasons, but they were seen as justifiable by the people on the other side too. Who says what is justifiable? Would the UN making a massive move in Daifure be justifiable, even though UN flagged soldiers would die and innocent civilians would be hurt because of it? If Nazi Germany had won WWII, would we still see our actions in WWII as justifiable? Would they?

Were the Napoleanic wars justifiable from either sides perspective? How about the Franco-Prussian War? Korea? Vietnam? All of these involved conscription and National Pride to some extent or the other.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here, but one must not view history through Rose colored glasses. If you do, you miss the real lessons.

I have given you no reason to believe that I see history through 'rose-colored glasses'. I am curious were exactly you pulled that from. You have no idea the extent of my knowledge in history. I am actually getting a little upset that you find it necessary to use such condescending tones with me when, in fact, you know next to nothing about me.

I am well aware of perspectives during war. I mean exactly what I said...both wars were justifiable and seen as such by -all- parties involved. Such is history and people.

04-16-2007, 01:32 AM

It was a blanket statement and not necessarily aimed at you, although it could have been construed as such. I simply find your earlier comments to be somewhat interesting in the light of human history.

As I said, I agree that some sort of national service would be good, I just disagree with some of the reasons you gave.

So if both wars were seen as justifiable by -ALL- sides as you say, how can National Pride, as a positive reason for conscription, ever be seen as a good thing and how would people view wars differently than they do now or have in the past? It seems to me if you have a large pool of bodies to use, your more likely to use them.

Originally Posted by cheesybanana

I'm probably being an idealist though.

I think I missed that when I read your earlier post.